(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Water quality management plan: eis for cape cod"



A 

VM3 



\' b A 



BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 9999 06434 701 4 



Pk 



<xsz~ re-K^rv-fx) 



GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
BOSTON PUBLIC LBRARY 

700 Boylston Street 
x: Boston, MA 02117 



i 



• • * .- J...£m^^. , 



-J 




BOSTON 
PUBLIC 
LIBRARY 




f 



GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 

700 Boylston Street 
V Boston, MA 02117 

I 



» 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2013 



http://archive.org/details/waterqualitymanaOOmass 




tC& 







f/NAL 
v. / 



GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS 

DEPARTMENT 
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 





Water 

Quality 

Management 

Plan/EIS 
For Cape Cod 



A 



/ 



s 



Volume 1 

Final Plan/ 

Environmental Impact Statement 

September 1978 



I 



ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 
and 
208 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN 

for 
CAPE COD 



VOLUME 1 



Prepared by: 
CAPE COD PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 
First District Court House 
Barnstable, Massachusetts 02630 

September J 978 
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 



Region I 
J.F.K. Federal Building 
Boston, Massachusetts 02203 



Responsible Officials: 



William R. Adams, Jr. 
Regional Administrator 
EPA - Region I 



> 




cUmI vj" A PnM- 



Alfred S. DeMott, Chairman 
Cape Cod Planning and Economic 
Development Commission 



208 AREAWIDE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE (cont.) 



Member 



Representing 



J 



Ralph Vaccaro 
James T. B. Tripp 
Michael J. Frucci 
Robert Brandwein 
Basil Edwards 
Edward Brady 
Arlene Wilson 

Charles W. Eager 
H. Lester Sherman 
Richard T. Witt 
Walter Applegate 
Barry Jordan 
Michael Frimpter 
Daniel McGillicuddy 

Clinton Watson 
Walter Kondo 
Terry- Anne Vigil 
Ralph Kardon 
James Callahan 
Robert F. Daley 

James Killian 
Rick DeVergilio 
Diane O'Connor 



Woods Hole Occanographi c Institute 

Environmental Defense Fund 

Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce 

Ashumet-John's Pond Association 

Barnstable Village Association 

Planning Advisory Committee 

Cape Cod Association of Conservation 

Commissions 
Barnstable County Commissioners 
Barnstable Sewer Commission 
Falmouth Department of Public Works 
Chatham Sewer Commission 
Environmental Protection Agency 
U. S. Geological Survey 
Department of Environmental Quality 

Engineering 
Division of Water Pollution Control 
Mass. Department of Public Works 
Mass. Department of Public Works 
Bureau of Solid Waste Disposal 
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 
First Coast Guard District Environmental 

Impact Administration 
Cape Cod National Seashore 
U. S. Soil Conservation Service 
Office of State Planning 



The preparation of this Draft Plan/EIS was financed by the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency through a grant provided under the pro- 
visions of Section 208 of Public Law 92-500. 



Table of Contents 



LIST OF TABLES i 

LIST OF FIGURES i 

LIST OF MAPS i 

PLAN SUMMARY S-l 

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1-1 

CHAPTER 2 - WATER QUALITY, MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 

WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT 2-1 

Segment Classification and Standards 2-2 

Water Quality Trends 2-4 

Present Quality 2-6 

Point Source Discharges 2-10 

Monitoring Recommendations 2-10 

WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT 2-15 

Sewer Construction Projects 2-16 

Neighborhood Solutions and Septage Treatment 2-31 

On-Site System Management 2-45 

Environmental Impacts 2-56 

LAND USE CONTROLS 2-58 

Protecting Critical Water Resources 2-59 

Growth Management 2-64 

Managing Seasonal Areas 2-65 

Pond Management 2-67 

Environmental Impacts 2-71 

WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT 2-73 

Recharge Area Needs 2-74 

Potential Water Supply Development Areas 2-74 

Groundwater Basins 2-75 

Water Supply Planning 2-78 

NON-POINT SOURCE CONTROLS 2-82 

Landfills 2-83 

Storm Water Runoff 2-89 

Road Salt Storage and Application 2-97 

Gasoline and Oil Storage and Spills 2-102 

Salt Water Intrusion 2-106 



NON- POINT SOURCE CONTROLS (cont.) 

Vessel Discharges 2-108 

Environmental Impacts 2-110 

WATER CONSERVATION 
Water Use 

Water Utility Role 
Regulatory Approaches 
Public Education 

MANAGEMENT AGENCIES 

Management Functions 
Designated Management Agencies 
Financial Arrangements 
Implementation Schedule 

CHAPTER 3 - TOWN RECOMMENDATIONS 

BARNSTABLE 

BOURNE 

BREWSTER 

CHATHAM 

DENNIS 

EASTHAM 

FALMOUTH 

HARWICH 

MASHPEE 

ORLEANS 

PROVINCETOWN 

SANDWICH 

TRURO 

WELLFLEET 

YARMOUTH 

CHAPTER 4 - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 

DRAFT PLAN REVIEW PROCESS 4-1 

APPENDICES 

A. DRAFT PLAN ERRATA SHEET A-l 

B. MODEL DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULING BYLAW A- 5 

C. EARTH REMOVAL BYLAW A- 6 

D. SAMPLE DAILY GASOLINE INVENTORY RECORD A- 11 

E. EXCERPTS FROM THE FAIRFAX COUNTY PLUMBING CODE A- 12 

F. BIBLIOGRAPHY A-13 



:■- 


■112 


2- 


■114 


2- 


■117 


2- 


■118 


2- 


■124 


2- 


•128 


:- 


■134 


2- 


■137 


5- 


-1 


3- 


■D 


5- 


■7 


3- 


-10 


3- 


-12 


5- 


-14 


5- 


-16 


3- 


-18 


3- 


-20 


3- 


-21 


3- 


■23 


3- 


-25 


5- 


-27 


3- 


-29 


3- 


-31 


3- 


-33 



LIST OF TABLES 



Page 



2.1 Cape Cod Segments Not Meeting Classification 2-7 

2.2 Discharges to Surface Waters 2- 11 

2.3 Summary of Facilities Recommendations 2-23 

2.4 Annual Sewer Cost to Typical Household 2-28 

2.5 Neighborhood Solutions Needs 2-32 

2.6 Screening of Alternatives 2-33 

2.7 Septage Facility Needs 2-40 

2.8 Water Saving Devices § Costs 2-115 
4.1 Draft Plan Review Committees 4-2 



LIST OF FIGURES 



2.1 Water Quality Classifications and Present 

Condition 2-5 

2.2 Indoor Domestic Water Use 2-114 



LIST OF MAPS 

2.1 Wastewater Management Problem Areas 2-17 

2.2 Sewer Service Areas 2-20 



Plan Summary 



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region I 

Boston, Massachusetts 

1. NAME OF ACTION 

Administrative (x) 
Legislative ( ) 

2. INTRODUCTION 

Groundwater is the only source of drinking water on Cape Cod. Surface 
waters, both fresh water ponds and coastal waters, are the Cape's major 
economic resource attracting thousands of visitors and seasonal resi- 
dents each year. 

The Cape has generally excellent water quality. However, increasing resi- 
dential densities and the three-fold summer population influx have caused 
some isolated water quality and wastewater management problems. Antici- 
pated future growth threatens to cause more serious water quality prob- 
lems, primarily potential groundwater contamination and increasing pond 
eutrophication. 

The Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission has conducted 
an areawide wastewater management planning program under Section 208 of 
PL 92-500 and published its Draft Water Quality Management Plan for Cape 
Cod in May, 1978. This draft plan examines the major water quality and 
wastewater management problems confronting Cape Cod and offers a series 
of alternatives in the areas of land use controls, wastewater management, 
non-point source controls, and institutional arrangements for improved 
water quality management. 

EPA and CCPEDC sponsored a formal 45-day public review period in accord- 
ance with NEPA which ended on July 20, 1978. The public comments re- 
ceived during this review period provided the basis for selecting the 
recommendations presented in this final Water Quality Management Plan/ 
EIS for Cape Cod. Public comments on the draft plan and staff responses 
to these comments are also presented in Volume 2 of this final plan. 

3. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTIONS 



The final plan recommendations deal with the Caoe ' s major water quality 
problems on a regional b/asis but recommendations have also been made to 
each Cape town to address those water quality problems considered to be 
a priority. The major recommendations of the final plan are as follows: 

Wastewater Management 

Approximately 90% of the Cape's year-round population relies on on-site 
wastewater disposal systems. While the 208 program has determined that 
central sewage treatment facilities are needed in certain isolated areas, 
the majority of the Cape's population will continue to rely on on-site 
disposal for the 20-year planning period. 

s-i ; 



The final plan recommends that towns with 208 designated sewer service 
areas should proceed with 201 facilities planning and construction 
(Barnstable, Bourne, Chatham, Falmouth, Provincetown and Sandwich). 
Those towns that have serious wastewater management problem areas which 
do not require central collection sewers should seek funds for a 201 
facility plan to evaluate decentralized solutions including on-site 
system rehabilitation, treatment systems and septage treatment facili- 
ties (Barnstable, Dennis, Harwich, Orleans and Wellfleet). 

It is further recommended that all towns participate in regionalizing 
septage treatment and disposal facilities to deal with non-sewered areas. 
Finally, it is recommended that all towns carry out an on-site system 
management program including regular maintenence, strict enforcement of 
Title 5 of the Massachusetts Environmental Code, upgrading of failing 
systems and proper installation practices supervised by qualified health 
agents. 

Land Use Controls 

Cape Cod is a highly seasonal area with a year-round population in 1975 
of 128,000 and a summer population of 382,000. At the present time, most 
of the population resides in shoreline areas. It is expected that much 
of the projected growth, however, will settle in more inland areas where 
most public water supply wells are located and along the shores of the 
Cape's many inland ponds. 

To protect both ground, surface and coastal waters, the final plan recom- 
mends that towns establish protective overlay districts for major "Water 
Resource Protection Areas" that would prohibit major polluting uses and 
limit residential density. The most stringent density requirements are 
recommended for the areas that contribute recharge to public wells. 

Water Supply Management 

The Cape has one aquifer which is divided by natural boundaries into five 
major groundwater basins. If water quality degradation takes place in one 
town, it must rely on neighboring towns for an adequate water supply. The 
emphasis of the 208 plan is on the prevention of water supply degradation 
through land use controls. It is further recommended that the towns co- 
operate in regional water supply planning to encourage water supply self- 
sufficiency and to effect adequate protection measures. 

Non-Point Source Controls 

Non-point sources of pollution are considered to be the major water quality 
problem on Cape Cod and the final plan makes the following recommendations 
to control these sources: 

1. Present landfill practices should be upgraded and disposal facilities 
regionalized. 

2. On-site systems should be controlled through density restrictions and 
the recommended management program. 

3. Road salt use should be reduced in areas impacting public and private 
water supplies and all road salt should be stored in enclosed sheds. 

S - 2 



4. All underground oil and gasoline storage tanks should be fiberglass 
or coated with fiberglass. All commercial distributors should main- 
tain daily inventory records to detect leaks. 

5. Surface infiltration of stormwater runoff should be encouraged by 
local regulations. Best management practices for urban storm drains 
and for agricultural activities should be adopted and enforced by the 
state. 

6. Towns should utilize the computer model of the Cape's aquifer system, 
prepared by USGS, for water supply development and to avoid salt water 
intrusion. 

Areawide Management Structure 

The institutional arrangements and legal authorities for improved waste- 
water management presently exist. The recommendation of the final plan 
that responsibility for water resource planning and coordination and for 
a regional water quality monitoring program be designated to the CCPEDC. 
Towns should retain their authority over structural facilities planning, 
construction and operation, land use controls and non-point source con- 
trols. The CCPEDC, however, should examine the potential for increasing 
the regional role in these areas beyond construction and technical assis- 
tance. 

4. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ACTIONS 

The final plan provides a comprehensive and integrated approach to im- 
prove the management of water quality and wastewater disposal problems 
on Cape Cod. The implementation of the plan recommendations should in- 
sure the protection of the Cape's drinking water quality and maintain 
fishable and swimmable waters meeting the 1983 goals PL 92-500. 

5. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 



Since the recommendations of the final plan are regional in nature, most 
of the anticipated impacts are not site specific and must be considered 
on a regional basis. The following major beneficial and adverse impacts 
are anticipated from the proposed actions. 

Wastewater Management 

Construction of sewer systems in recommended sewer service areas will 
cause short-term environmental damage and disrupt traffic patterns. Minor 
changes in groundwater levels in the sewered area can be expected. Sew- 
ering will also have the economic impact of raising taxes and requiring 
substantial user fees. All of the wastewater management recommendations 
will improve water quality and public health. The decentralized approach 
of avoiding future sewer needs is compatible with the area's economic, 
social and political structure. 

Land Use Controls 

There are no adverse environmental impacts from the land use recommenda- 
tions. It is expected that minimal short-term economic impacts may take 
place in certain areas where lowered densities decrease the value of some 



S - 3 



individuals' property. However, there is a long-term economic gain 
in avoiding future water supply treatment and in- lake management pro- 
grams. The land use controls recommended will also help to preserve 
the community character of the region. 

Water Supply Management 

There are no adverse environmental, social or economic impacts associated 
with these recommendations. 

Non-Point Source Controls 

There are no adverse environmental impacts expected from these recom- 
mendations. It is anticipated that improved landfill practices and re- 
gionalizing disposal facilities will have economic impacts, as such im- 
provements will require additional tax support. Increased recycling 
would also require certain social changes. Minimal economic impacts are 
also anticipated from the recommendation to require fiberglass gas and 
oil storage tanks due to the somewhat higher cost of these tanks. The 
recommendation to store road salts in enclosed sheds could result in a 
slight tax increase for the construction costs. 

Areawide Management Structure 

There are no environmental impacts associated with this recommendation 
but there would be a small increase in the county budget to support 
CCPEDC's continuing water quality planning efforts. 

6. MITIGATING ACTIONS 



The final plan recommendations include the following considerations di- 
rected at mitigating adverse impacts: 

1. Sewer service areas are limited and alternatives to sewers are empha- 
sized. 

2. Land use controls are aimed only at those priority areas critical to 
water resources. 



S - 4 



Introduction 



In May, 1978 the Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission 
published a Draft Water Quality Management Plan/EIS for Cape Cod. The 
draft plan was prepared with funds provided by the EPA under 
Section 208 of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 
(PL 92-500) . The draft plan is the product of over two years of 
planning by consultants and staff, along with interested citizens 
and public officials who participated in the planning program. 

Section 208 of PL 92-500 calls for areawide wastewater management 
planning to achieve the national goal of restoring and maintaining "the 
chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters". 
The purpose of the 208 planning program is to identify the water 
quality management problems of a region and to develop cost effective 
and environmentally sound approaches to deal with those problems on 
an area-wide basis. 

Over 200 regions in the country received 208 planning grants, most 
with 100 percent federal funding. This unusual federal support for 
the 208 planning program emphasizes the importance that Congress has 
given to the concept of areawide wastewater management planning. 
Traditionally, towns with serious wastewater management problems have 
sought federal funding assistance to construct treatment facilities. 
Little attention was given to regional approaches or to alternatives 
to centralized sewerage facilities. Even more important, there has 
been no regional water quality management plan that addressed methods 
of preventing the development of wastewater management problems. 
It has been traditionally assumed that all areas, as they urbanize, 
would eventually need a sewerage system. 

The 208 program here on Cape Cod and throughout the country has 
helped to change these traditional views. Actions can be taken now, 
that will prevent the development of serious wastewater management 
problems and that will protect water quality for recreational and 
drinking water purposes. The recommendations developed in the 208 
plan are designed to provide a comprehensive preventive approach to 
wastewater and water quality management as well as guidelines for 
solving existing problems. 

The 208 draft plan identifies the present and potential water 
quality problems of Cape Cod, offers alternative methods of dealing 
with these problems and preliminary recommendations for a compre- 
hensive water quality management program. The draft plan provides a 
detailed assessment and analysis of the major water quality manage- 
ment issues examined during the 208 planning program. This analysis 
is based on consultant reports and staff examination of current li- 
terature which is available in the CCPEDC office. This detailed 
background information has not been repeated in the final plan. 

It is hoped that those individuals who review this final plan will 
view it as a companion document to the draft plan. In general, the 
draft plan provides the baseline information for the final plan re- 
commendations except in those sections where new information has 
been added to provide background for newly developed recommendations. 



1-1 



Since the draft plan was published in May, the EPA and CCPEDC have 
sponsored a formal 45-day public review period which is discussed in 
detail in the "Public Participation" section. The comments that were 
received during this review period were used to refine the preliminary 
recommendations presented in the draft plan. Additional recommenda- 
tions were also developed on the basis of public comments. Thus, the 
final plan is aimed primarily at presenting the recommendations of the 
208 plan. The environmental impacts of the chosen alternatives are 
also presented for consideration. 

There are two volumes to the final plan. Volume 1 presents the final 
plan recommendations and environmental impact analysis. Volume 2 pro- 
vides all of the public comments submitted during the formal public 
review period and the 208 staff responses to those comments. 

Volume 1 is presented in a direct and concise format to facilitate read- 
ing and to serve as a handbook for water quality management on Cape Cod. 
Chapter 2, "Water Quality Management Recommendations" is organized into 
sections dealing with the major areas of concern studied during the 
planning period: "Water Quality Assessment," "Wastewater Management," 
"Land Use Controls," "Water Supply Management," "Non-Point Source Con- 
trols," "Water Conservation" and "Management Agencies." An overview 
discussion is presented for each of these areas along with federal, state 
regional and local recommendations. Environmental impacts of the recom- 
mendations are also presented in this chapter. 

Specific priorities for local action are discussed by town, in Chapter 3, 
"Town Recommendations." The recommendations presented in this chapter 
suggest those water quality management problems in each town that need 
special attention. Chapter 4, "Public Participation" explains the 
Draft Plan Review Process and outlines the activities that took place 
during the formal public review period. 

Public Review of Final Plan 

Following publication of this final plan, there will be a final 30-day 
public review period. Each of the 15 town boards of selectmen will be 
asked to review the final plan and comment to the Department of Environ- 
mental Quality Engineering on the plan's recommendations. These town 
comments will be used by the state in reviewing the final plan and in 
determining which sections of the plan the Governor will approve and 
certify. Those sections of the final plan that are certified by the 
Governor and approved by EPA will be eligible for continued 208 fund- 
ing. Through such approval EPA and the state will also be indicating 
their intention to comply with the recommendations within the limita- 
tions of their authority. 

It must be emphasized that the 208 plan, however, is not a static docu- 
ment but will be updated on an annual basis to meet new needs and demands. 
It is believed that the 208 planning program and the draft plan recom- 
mendations have helped to raise the awareness of citizens and public 
officials to the need for continuing, comprehensive regional water 



1-2 



> 



quality planning and management. Some of the recommendations developed 
by the 208 program have already been adopted by towns and many town 
officials have indicated their willingness to be involved in the imple- 
mentation of the recommendations. 

Some of the recommendations presented in the final plan call for sub- 
stantial changes in the traditional management arrangements. It is 
not expected that these changes will take place immediately. It is 
hoped, however, that the 208 final plan will serve as an impetus for 
local, regional, state and federal action that will improve present 
regulations, procedures and programs relating to water quality manage- 
ment. Such changes are needed to meet the goals of the Clean Water 
Act and to maintain the quality of the Cape's water resources for its 
present and future populations. 



1-3 



Water Quality 

Management 

Recommendations 

Water Quality Assessment 
Wastewater Management 
Land Use Controls 
Water Supply Management 
Non-Point Source Controls 
Water Conservation 

anagement Agencies 




Water Quality Assessment 



During the 208 planning program all available water quality data for 
Cape Cod were collected and computerized. Testing programs were 
carried out to augment groundwater and surface water data, and special 
studies of storm runoff and sanitary landfills were conducted. The 
results of these testing programs are summarized in the draft plan. 
Original data may be reviewed at the CCPEDC office in two interim 
reports: Final Report: Groundwater Quality , and Final Report : Sur- 
face Water Quality (Environmental Management Institute, 1976). 

Since publication of the draft plan, new coastal water quality data 
have become available from DWPC, and revised water quality standards 
have been adopted. The purpose of the following discussion is to update 
the 208 plan in light of this new information and to present revised 
recommendations for a regional monitoring program. A discussion of 
existing point source discharges and NPDES permits which was inadver- 
tently omitted from the draft plan is also presented. 

The discussion is presented in five sections: 

--Segment Classification and Standards 
--Water Quality Trends 
--Present Quality 
--Point Source Discharges 
--Monitoring Recommendations 



2-1 



Segment Classification and Standards 

Surface and Coastal Waters 

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts adopted revised segment classifi- 
cations and water quality criteria on September 21, 1978. No changes 
were made in the classification of Cape Cod waters. The coastal 
waters remain designated "SA" (Suitable for swimming and shellfishing 
without depuration) , with the exception of the Cape Cod Canal and 
Falmouth Inner Harbor, which are "SB" (shellfishing restricted) . The 
inland waters are classified "B" (swimmable/fishable) except for Long 
Pond in Falmouth, which is classified "A" (for water supply). Figure 
2.1 indicates segment classifications and existing conditions. 

Several new anti-degradation regulations were applied to the Cape's 
waters as shown below: 



Waters 

Surface waters subject to the 
rise and fall of the tide 



Regulation 

4.2 "High Quality Waters." Waters 
whose quality is or becomes higher 
than that necessary to sustain na- 
tional goal uses shall be maintained 
at that higher quality unless limited 
degradation is authorized by the 
Division of Water Pollution Control. 



All other surface waters (not 
subject to the rise and fall 
of the tide) 

Coastal waters of the Atlantic 
Ocean adjacent to the Cape Cod 
National Seashore 



4.3 "Low Flow Waters." New or in- 
creased discharges prohibited unless 
a variance is granted by the Division. 

4.4 "National Resource Waters." New 
discharges are prohibited and existing 
discharges shall be eliminated unless 
the discharger is able to demonstrate 
that: 

a) alternative means of disposal are 
not reasonably available or feasible; 
and b) the discharges will not af- 
fect the quality of the water as a 
national resource. 

The minimum criteria for these classifications are on file at the CCPEDC 
office, and are available from the Division of Water Pollution Control. 
No changes in classification of surface or coastal waters are recommended 
at this time. 

Additional regulations are imposed on all of the coastal waters of the 
Cape by the Ocean Sanctuaries Act. The Act was revised and new regu- 
lations were issued in 1978 which prohibit all new municipal discharges 
and the expansion of existing discharges. 



2-2 



Groundwater Standards 

There is no system of classification of groundwaters in Massachusetts, and 
consequently no minimum criteria for groundwater quality have been estab- 
lished. In the 208 assessment groundwater samples were compared against 
drinking water standards and background (modal) water quality (see draft 
Chapter 3). The need for groundwater standards falls into two areas: 
water quality assessment and effluent limitations. The following guide- 
lines are recommended: 

1. Throughout the Cape groundwater samples should be compared to back- 
ground water quality and drinking water standards for the purpose of 
monitoring and assessing the impacts of non-point sources of pollution. 

2. In areas presently believed to be within, or upgradient of, recharge 
areas for existing water supply wells, or in potential water supply 
development areas (see draft plan Map 5.6) drinking water standards for 
chemical constituents should be applied except that the standard and 
planning goal for nitrate nitrogen concentration should be 5.0 ppm. 

3. Effluent limitations on sewage treatment plants in areas referred 
to in item 2 above above should meet the standards recommended in 2, 
measured at the water table. 

With the exception of the nitrate nitrogen limitation, these recommenda- 
tions are intended to be consistent with EPA effluent quality criteria 
for discharges to the ground from federally- funded sewer treatment plants. 
EPA defines three cases of groundwater use and effluent limitations, as 
follows: 

-- Case I . The groundwater can potentially be used for drinking 
water supply. The groundwater resulting from land application 
of the wastewater shall meet the maximum contaminant levels 
for organic and inorganic chemicals specified by the National 
Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Or, if the existing 
concentration of any parameter exceeds the maximum contaminant 
levels, there should be no increase in concentration of that 
parameter. 

-- Case II . The groundwater is used for drinking water supply. 
The criteria for Case I should be met, and the maximum micro- 
biological contaminant levels for drinking water supply systems 
must be met where groundwater is used without disinfection. 

-- Case III . Uses other than water supply. Site-by-site criteria 
to be established by the Regional Administrator based on present 
or potential use of the groundwater. 

In all cases a monitoring system is required. Recommendations on the 
application of these criteria on Cape Cod are made in the "Sewer Con- 
struction Projects" section of this plan. 



2-3 



Water Quality Trends 

The draft plan identified and discribed short-and- long-term water 
quality trends of concern on Cape Cod, with respect to both surface 
and groundwaters. These trends are summarized below: 



Water 
Resource 



Critical 
Pollutant 



Source 



Trend 



Short term: 
Surface and 
Coastal waters 



Col i form 



Overflows and 
illegal direct dis- 
charges from fail- 
ing on-site systems 



Contamination of 
shellfish beds; 
swimming quality 
threatened 



Long term: 
Groundwater 



Nitrate 



High density use of Concentrations 

on- lot systems; sew- threatening 

age treatment plants drinking water 

and fertilizer quality 



Fresh surface 
waters 



Phosphorus 



Fertilizer runoff 
and on-site systems 



Eutrophi cation 



Coastal embay- 
ments 



Nitrate 



On-site sewage 
systems in high 
densities 



Eutrophi cation 



2-4 






1 



12 3 4 5 



FIGURE 2.1 

WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATIONS 
AND PRESENT CONDITIONS 



Atlantic Ocean 




\_J Wofer use clossificofion 

f ) Presenl condition 

(~3~ Ar eo not meeting some criterio of water use clossificofion 



SOURCE: Division of Water Pollution Control, 1976 



2-5 



Present Quality 

A water quality assessment was performed as part of the 208 program, 
the results of which were reported in detail in the draft plan. Ground- 
water quality was found to be generally above drinking w.iter standards. 
Surface waters and coastal waters generally meet the 198.S goals of swim- 
mable and fishable quality. Some evidence of degradation in both ground 
and surface waters was found, however, as summarized below. 

Private wells : 150 private wells were tested by the 208 program. 
Nitrates in excess of public health standards were limited to isolated 
locations, although many wells showed nitrates above natural back- 
ground levels. Private well samples are probably indicative of local- 
ized water quality problems, such as the contaminated "plume" from a 
single on-site system. 

Water Supplies: Regional water quality is more accurately reflected 
by water quality in public supply wells. No broad-scale water quality 
degradation appeared to exist associated with nitrate levels in public 
wells. Many public wells exhibit background levels. A few supplies 
in highly developed areas, however, show increasing nitrate levels, 
though well below drinking water standards. In addition to nitrate, 
sodium was found to be an increasing problem in several public supply 
wells located near Route 6. This is attributed to road salting. 
Close attention should be paid to such trends in public water supplies, 
since it is likely that several decades may elapse before the full 
water quality impact of development is felt. 

Surface Waters : Many ponds show evidence of increased algae growth. 
Frequently groups of nearby lakes were found to have algae problems, 
possibly reflecting general groundwater overloading from non-point 
sources associated with urban development. A few ponds showed winter 
increases in salinity, presumably due to the drainage of road salts 
applied for snow and ice removal. Intensive studies of several ponds 
in Falmouth were conducted by the Association for the Preservation of 
Vineyard Sound, the Falmouth Board of Health and the Barnstable County 
Health Department during the summers of 1977 and 1978. The results 
showed serious contamination in the total and fecal coliform concen- 
trations well in excess of public health standards for recreational 
use. This is attributed by those groups and Falmouth's engineering 
consultant, Camp, Dresser and McKee to septic system failures and 
direct discharges. This is the first serious case of pollution 
documented in inland lakes and ponds. 

Coastal Waters : The DWPC surveyed water quality in all coastal segments 
in the summer of 1976. The data, received after publication of the 
draft plan, showed several segments not meeting criteria for their 
classifications. 

Since many instances were associated both with high density on-shore 
development and marinas, further investigation is necessary to deter- 
mine the sources of the problems. It is apparent that both marine head 
discharges and urban runoff, possibly contaminated with septic system 
overflows, are contributing factors. Table 2.1 lists segments not 
meeting their classifications. Figure 2.1 shows the locations of 
violations. 

2-6 



< 
CJ 
t— i 
u, 

r— 1 
CO 
CO 

< 
X 
cj 

cj 
z 

t— i 

E- 

UJ 
UJ 



H 
O 
Z 

CO 
E- 
Z 

ta 

■«£. 

CJ 

w 

CO 

Q 
O 

u 

w 

<c 
cj 



co 

< 
x 

u 



2 

O 

h-i 

n 

u 

i— i 

P. 



E-i O 

Z l-H 

UJ E-" 

CO I— I 

UJ Q 

2 z 

ex o 

u 



a 

UJ UJ 



E-i 
< 

I— I 

u 



3 
E- 

U- 



UJ 
CO 



UJ 
CO 

UJ 

as 

Oh 



>- 

OS 

< 

a 
z 

o 

CQ 



03 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


co 


co 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


co 





* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


09 


CJ 


u 


OQ 


CQ 


u 


CQ 


CQ 


co 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 









bO 




bfl 




bO 






bO 




bO 




bO 


bo 








P * 




P •> 




P 


*\ 




P «> 




P - 




P •> 


p " 








•H p 




•H P 




•H 


P 




•H P 




•H p 




•H P 


•H P 








X O 




X o 




X 


o 




X o 




X o 




X o 


X o 








P -H 




P -H 




p 


•H 




P -H 




P >H 




P 'H 


P -H 








a3 P 




aJ +J 




aj 


P 




Oj P 




o3 P 




aj P 


aj p 








X aj 




X nj 




X 


aj 




X aj 




X oj 




X aj 


JQ aj 








bo 




bo 






W) 




bO 




W) 




bo 


bO 








•» aj 


bO 


•» oj 


bO 


•N 


a3 


bO 


*> aj 


M 


•» a3 


bO 


- rt W) 


•> oj bO 








bO Ph 


C 


bO Ph 


P 


bO 


Ph 


P 


bO p, 


P 


W) a, 


P 


bO Ph P 


Mac 








P p 


•H 


C O 


•H 


C 


O 


•H 


P O 


•H 


P O 


•H 


p O -H 


P Q -H 








•H P 


X 


•H rH 


("H 


•H 


rH 


X 


•H rH 


X 


•H fH 


X 


•H M ,P 


•H P X 








P Ph 


to 


+-> Ph 


7/5 


P 


Ph 


t/J 


P Ph 


to 


P Ph 


W 


P Ph to 


P Ph tO 








aj 


• H 


Oj 


•H 


aj 




•H 


Oj 


•H 


aj 


•H 


03 -H 


aj -h 








O CD 


4-1 


O CD 


4-1 


O 


CD 


4-H 


O CD 


4-1 


O CD 


4-1 


O CD 4-1 


O CD 4h 








,0 4-i 


rH 


,Q 4-1 


rH 


X 


4-1 


rH 


,£3 4-1 


r—t 


JD 4-1 


rH 


,0 4H rH 


X3 4-1 rH 








•H 


<—t 


■H 


rH 




•H 


rH 


•H 


i— 1 


•H 


r—t 


•H rH 


•H rH 








rH r-l 


CD 


rH rH 


CD 


<—{ 


rH 


CD 


rH rH 


CD 


<—t i—t 


CD 


rH r— 1 CD 


rH rH CD 








03 T3 


X 


03 T3 


X 


aj 


XI 


X 


Oj T3 


X 


aj T3 


X 


oj T3 X 


aJ T3 X 








C "-" 


tO 


C rH 


IT) 


P 


<—t 


C/) 


P --H 


to 


P rH 


to 


P rH C0 


P rH tO 








O -H 




O -H 




O 


•H 




O -H 




O -H 




O -H 


O -H 








•H ^ 


•N 


•H ^ 


*\ 


•H 


2 


•\ 


•H £ 


«N 


•H 2 


»\ 


• H 5 - 


■H 5 «N 








P 


bO 


+J 


bO 


P 




bO 


P 


W) 


p 


bo 


P bO 


P bO 








aj c*!r 


C 


Oj u!7 


C 


Oj 


air 


P 


03 u? 


P 


aj us - 


P 


nj us c; 


oj uS C 








CD 


•H 


CD 


•H 


CD 




•H 


CD 


•H 


CD 


•H 


a th 


-H 








P X 


X 


rH X 


X 


rH 


X 


X 


^ X 


X 


rH X 


X 


rH x X 


P X X 








O to 


CO 


o m 


(/) 


o 


</) 


to 


O W 


1/1 


o to 


to 


o to to 


o to to 








0) *H 


■H 


CD -H 


•H 


CD 


•H 


•H 


CD -H 


•H 


CD -H 


•H 


O -H -H 


CD -H -H 








OS 4h 


4-1 


OS 4-1 


4h 


OS 


4-1 


4h 


OS 4-1 


4h 


OS 4h 


4-1 


CiS 4-1 4-1 


OS 4h 4h 


1 






i bO 




i bO 










1 bO 




i bO 




i bO 


i bfl 


X! 


i 




XI p 




T3 p 










-a p 




T3 P 




X! P 


TJ P 


rH 


to 




<-t -H 




rH -H 




1 






rH .H 




rH -H 




<-* -H 


rH -H 


•H 


3 




•H X 




•H X 




oj 


CD 




•H X 




•H X 




■H X 


•H X 


5 


T3 




5 P 




^ +-> 




CD 


4-1 




£ P 




5 P 




S P 


S P 




P 




aj 




Oj 




rH 


•H 


bO 


aj 




o3 




aj 


03 


us 


•H 




«£r ,o 




air ,£3 




o 

CD 


rH 
T3 


P 

•H 


to - x> 




us- ,o 




us- ,Q 


vjj _Q 


X 


*4 


bo 


X - 




X ■> 




5h 


rH 


X 


X « 




X - 




X * 


X ■• 


CO 


bO 


p 


to be 




in bO 






•H 


p 


w bO 




V; bO 




to bO 


to bO 


•H 


P 


•H 


•h c 




•H p 




*\ 


2 


rt 


•H P 




■H P 




•H C 


•H c 


4-1 


•H 


T— 1 


4h -h 




4h .h 




bO 




^D 


4-1 -H 




4-1 -H 




4-i -H bO 


4h «h W) 




X 


o 


X 




X 




P 


a!T 




X 




X 




X P 


X P 


•v 


t/) 


o 


* to 




*> 7) 




•H 




•v 


~ to 




•N t/) 




•> tO -H 


». (O -H 


bO 


•H 


o 


bO-H 




bO -H 




X 


X 


bO 


bO 'H 




W).h 




b£;H X 


bO-H X 


P 


4-1 




C 4h 




C 4h 




t/3 


to 


P 


P 4-i 




P 4-1 




p 4h to 


P 4h to 


•H 




uS 


•H 




• h 




•H 


•H 


•H 


• H 




•H 




•H -H 


•H -H 


P 


*\ 




P •» 




-P •» 




4-1 


4-1 


X 


P •> 




P •> 




+J » 4-1 


P -v 4h 


a3 


p 


bO 


aj C 




oj c 




rH 




to 


aj c 




. aj c 




03 p rH 


Oj P rH 


O 


o 


C 


O O 




O O 




rH 


*\ 


•H 


O O 




O O 




O O rH 


O O rH 


X 


•H 


•H 


X -H 




X3 -H 




CD 


b0 4n 


,Q -H 




£3 -H 




X -H CD 


X -H CD 




P 


t/5 


P 




+J 




X 


p 




P 




P 




P X 


P X 


I— ( 


a3 


to 


i— ( aj 




rH Oj 




V) 


•H 


•V 


rH 03 




rH Oj 




h s i/i 


i— i 03 to 


rt 


M 


<a 


nJ bO 




oj bO 






P 


p 


oj bO 




aj bO 




a3 bO 


03 bO 


P 


a3 


u 


p aj 




C aj 




t3 


aj 


O 


"P aj 




P aj 




P aj T3 


P 03 T3 


o 


Ph 


o 


o a, 




O Ph 




CD 


O 


•H 


O Ph 




O Ph 




O Ph CD 


O Ph CD 


•H 


o 


P 


•H o 




•H O 




P 


X 


P 


• h O 




• H O 




■HOP 


•HOP 


+-> 


p 


Ph 


P rH 




P rH 




CJ 




aj 


P rH 




P 5-H 




P P a 


+-> U O 


aj 


a. 




nj (Dh 




aJ Ph 




•H 


rH 


bo 


aj Ph 




aj Ph 




aj Ph-h 


03 Ph -H 


<U 




r—t 


CD 




CD 




rH 


aj 


oj 


CD 




<D 




CD P 


CD P 


P 


CD 


0} 


r-l CD 




■ U CD 




P 


p 


Ph 


U CD 




U d) 




P CD P 


P CD P 


o 


4H 


•H 


CJ 4-1 




O 4n 




V) 


O 


o 


U 4-1 




U 4-1 




O 4h to 


O 4h to 


CD 


•H 


P 


CD -r-l 




CD -r-l 




CD 


•H 


rH 


0) -H 




CD -H 




CD -H CD 


CD -H CD 


as 


i—l 


P 


OS t—l 




OS' <— 1 




OS 


P 


Ph 


OS rH 




OS rH 




OS rH P 


OS rH P 



















£ 




















o3 




CD 
















X 




1— 
















P 


E 


u 


X 










*\ 




a3 


aj 


p 


o 










p 




X 


X 


o 


•H 


*. 






O 


O 




CJ 


P 


OQ 


S 


p 


•\ 




P 


x 






03 




-d 


o 


P 




3 


p 




** 


X 


•\ 


p 


X 


O 




P 


o3 




-* 


CJ 


i— i 


aj 


p 


X 




H , . 


X 




CD 




a3 


CO 


aj 


p 










CD 


»s 


P X 




X 


aj 




*s 


P 


p 


H 


P 


a3 cj 


** 




X 




P 


s 


2 


CJ 


O 


U -H 


M 


CD CD 






CD 


o 


o 




X 




CD 


■ rH rH 


4-J 


P 


> 


p 


p 


X 


p 


T3 -C! 


CD 


X X 


CD 


CD 


•H 


CD 


CD 


to 


aj 


O p 


P 


03 03 


CD 


CD 


a! 


U 


o 


•H 


, , 


CJ aj 


CJ 


P P 


i— i 


rH 




P 


p 


4h 




CO 




to to 


4h 


4-1 


•H 


•H 


•H 


p 


CD 


CD 


rH 


rH £ 


rH 


i— 1 


CD 


> 


> 


to 


00 


PhT3 


rH 


i— 1 


I— 1 


E 


o 


o 


o 


a3 


a3 p 


•H 


o3 nj 


CD 


CD 


aj 


p 


p 


p 


P 


U aj 


£ 


CQ OQ 


3£ 


2; 


a. 


0- 


Oh 


UU 


CO 



2-7 



P 

o 
u 



CQ 
< 

E- 



00 
CO 
< 



2 

o 

< 
U 

i— t 

cl. 



2 

H O 

2 hh 

W H 

CO i— i 

W Q 

as 2 

cu o 
u 



Q 

E- CO 

< z> 
a, 

E- H 

< Ll- 



CO 

z> 

E- 
2 

UJ 
CO 

cu 

OS 



as 

< 

Q 
2 

:=> 
o 

OQ 



< 


ca 


< 


< 


< 


co 


< 


< 


CO 


CO 


co 


CO 


co • 


co 


CO 


CO 



* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


•X 


* 


CQ 


CQ 


CQ 


CQ 


u 


o 


u 


C_J 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


co 


co 


CO 


CO 



t»0 


60 


00 


00 


oo 






oo 




oo 




oo 


c - 


c - 


c « 


c: - 


c 


*\ 




C i 




c * 




c ■» 


■H C 


•H C 


•H C 


•H C 


•H 


c 




•H C 




•H C 




•H C 


X o 


X o 


X o 


x o 


X 


o 




X o 




X o 




X o 


P -H 


+-> «H 


P -H 


P -H 


p 


•H 




P -H 




P -H 




P »H 


aj P 


cti P 


o3 P 


oS P 


03 


p 




cti +J 




oS P 




o3 P 


Xi as 


Xi oS 


X o3 


X «J 


X 


OS 




X nS 




X oS 




X rt 


00 


00 


oo 


00 




oo 




oo 




oo 




oo 


• rt «) 


" CTj 00 


- 03 OO 


*> o3 OO 


•V 


03 


oo 


•> oS 


oo 


*> oS 


oo 


- OS oo 


WiftC 


00 CL, s= 


OO CL, C 


00 CL C 


oo 


CL, 


c 


OO CL 


c 


OO Ch 


c 


OO CL C 


C O -H 


C O -H 


C O -H 


C O -H 


c 


o 


•H 


c o 


•H 


c o 


■H 


C O •r- 


•H H X 


•H fn X 


•H H X 


•H H X 


•H 


u 


X 


•H H 


X 


• H H 


X 


•H H X 


P Oh CO 


P CL 00 


P CL oo 


P CL. 00 


p 


CL, 


00 


p a. 


00 


P Ph 


00 


P CL 00 


03 -H 


oS -h 


03 -H 


OS »H 


03 




•H 


o$ 


•H 


oS 


•H 


03 «H 


O <D Cl— 1 


O 4-1 


O 4-1 


O 4h 


o 





4-1 


O 


«P 


O 


4-1 


O 4h 


X 4H rH 


J3 <W H 


X 4-1 rH 


JO 4-1 rH 


X 


4-i 


r—\ 


X 4-t 


rH 


X 4-i 


y—l 


Xl 4-! rH 


•H i— 1 


•H r-\ 


•H i—l 


•H rH 




•H 


r-i 


•H 


1— 1 


•H 


1—{ 


•H rH 


i— i i— i a) 


<—< r-i 


i— 1 ^H 


rH rH 


r—{ 


1H 





rH rH 





rH rH 





rH rH 


oj 13 X 


03 13 X 


03 -d x 


cd T3 x 


OS 


T3 


X 


as -a 


X 


OS 13 


X 


oJ 13 X 


c ■ — t tn 


C h m 


C rH 00 


C rH 00 


c 


t—l 


00 


C rH 


00 


C —i 


00 


C rH 00 


O -H 


O -H 


O -H 


O -H 


o 


•H 




O -H 




O -H 




O -H 


•H 3 • 


•H 3 * 


•H 3 •> 


•H 3 •> 


•H 


3 


•V 


•H 5- 


»v 


•H 3 


V 


•H 3 " 


+-» OO 


p oo 


p oo 


P 00 


p 




00 


p 


00 


p 


oo 


p oo 


aj us- C 


03 wd- c 


03 wD- C 


OS wD" C 


oS 


wD- 


c 


OS wD 1 


c 


OS wD 


c 


03 wD c 


-H 


(D «H 


-H 


-H 







•H 





•H 





• H 


-H 


h x x 


H X X 


M X X 


H X X 


H 


X 


X 


H X 


X 


H X 


X 


H X X 


U Ifl (A 


u oo oo 


O 00 00 


a oo oo 


o 


00 


00 


O 00 


00 


a to 


00 


O 00 00 


O -H -H 


-H -H 


-H >H 


-H '-H 





•H 


•H 


-H 


•H 


-H 


•H 


-H -H 


OS 4h 4h 


as 4h <p 


OS 4-i 4-( 


OS 4-i 4h 


as 


4-1 


<HH 


as 4-i 


<p 


as 4h 


4h 


OS 4h 4-1 


i OO 


1 00 


1 00 


I oo 




oo 




i oo 




i oo 




1 00 


13 C 


T3 C 


T3 C 


~o c 


T3 


c 




13 c 




13 C 




13 C 


i— I -H 


i— 1 -H 


i— I -H 


rH .H 


rH 


•H 




rH -H 




<—t «H 




rH -H 


•H X 


•H X 


•H X 


•H X 


•H 


X 




•H X 




•H X 




•H X 


2 P 


3 p 


3 p 


3 P 


3 


p 




2 p 




3 p 




3 P 


oS 


CTJ 


a3 


03 




03 




oS 




OS 




03 


uT7 JO 


wD X) 


wD - X 


wD" X 


wD" X 




wD X 




wD X 




wD- X 


x « 


X - 


X - 


X - 


X 


•s 




X • 




X « 




•^ ^ 


00 00 


oo oo 


oo oo 


00 oo 


00 


OO 




00 OO 




oo OO 




oo oo 


•H C 


•H C 


•H C 


•H C 


•H 


c 




•H C 




•H C 




•H C 


>H.H M 


4h -h OO 


4h -h 00 


4-1 .H 00 


4h 


•H 




4h .h 




4-1 -H 




4-1 >H 


X c 


X c 


X c 


X c 




X 




X 




X 




X 


»(/)•!-( 


*> 00 -H 


"00-H 


•v 00 -H 


•s 


oo 




•> 00 




n 00 




•> 00 


60'Hj: 


oo-h x 


OO-H X 


OO-H X 


oo 


•H 




OO -rH 




OO-H 




OO-H 


c 4h oo 


C 4-1 oo 


C 4-1 oo 


C 4h oo 


c 


4h 




C 4h 




C 4h 




C 4-1 


•H -H 


•H -H 


•H -H 


• H -H 


•H 






•H 




»H 




•H 


4-) •> 4-1 


H_> « 4-1 


+J •> 4-1 


p •> U-I 


p 


•* 




p •> 




p •> 




p I 


rt Ch 


rt c h 


o3 C h 


OS P, rH 


03 


c 




oS C 




03 C 




ctf C 


O O rH 


O O i-i 


O O — i 


O O rH 


o 


o 




o o 




o o 




o o 


X -H 


X -H O 


X -H 


X -H 


X 


• H 




X -H 




X 'H 




X 'H 


P X 


P X 


P X 


P X 




p 




p 




p 




p 


i— I ctJ to 


h rt ifl 


i— I a3 oo 


rH OS 00 


<—l 


oS 




rH OS 




rH 03 




i— i oS 


aj oo 


OS OO 


aJ oo 


03 OO 


oS 


oo 




03 oo 




oS OO 




oS oo 


C oJ 13 


C rt -O 


C rt-O 


C OS T3 


c 


03 




c rt 




C "3 




C oS 


O CL, 0) 


O CL. o 


O CL, 


O CL, 


o 


CL, 




O CL, 




O CL, 




O CL 


•HOP 


•HOP 


•HOP 


•HOP 


• H 


o 




• H O 




•H O 




• H O 


+-> h u 


^ f-t O 


^ u o 


■>-> u o 


p 


u 




P rH 




P rH 




P rH 


as CL, -H 


a3 CL-h 


a Ph-h 


OS CL -H 


oS 


a. 




OS CL 




03 CL, 




aS CL, 


H 


H 


H 


H 






















fi p 


fn O P 


U +J 


rH P 


H 







H 




r* 




rH 


O 4h 00 


a 4-i oo 


O 4-( oo 


O 4h 00 


o 


4-t 




O 4-. 




O 4h 




O 4h 


-H O 


0- -H 


-H 


-H 





•H 




-H 




-H 




-H 


o: h ^ 


as --I m 


OS rH H 


OS rH rH 


as 


rH 




OS r-t 




as rH 




OS rH 



X 
















u 






00 










•H 


X 


X 


•H 




•v 


X 


•\ 


3 


o 


o 


c 





rH 


p 


/ — \ 


H 


•H 


•H 


c 


<-t 


o 


3 





oS 

s 


H 


E 



a 


■s 


* 


o 

E 


<—< 

o 




03 


a3 




p 


OS 


rH 


33 


•* 


ac 


X 


#v 


00 


s 


as 




H 






rH 


c 




LL. 


•8 


o 


•\ 


»» 





rH 


rH 




X 


rH 


rH 


> 


OS 





•s 


o 


rH 


o 





• H 


CQ 


c 


^ 


o 


oS 


X 


> 


as 




c 


o 


s 


X 


u 


•H 




•V 


1— 1 


X 


v — ' 




03 


as 


T3 


X 




rH 







s 




c 


OS 


X X 


as 


13 X 


rH 




OO 


o 


CQ 


p p 


X 


C P 





00 


c 


CL, 




3 3 




O 3 


g 


c 


•H 




00 


o o 


p 


Cu O 


X 





H 


c 


•H 


S E 


as 


E 


o 


rH 


rH 


OS 


3 


t—( i-i 





rH i— 1 


X 


rH 





3 





oS as 


rH 


as 


3: 


< 


X 


CO 


X 


PL LU 


o 


u u. 



2-8 



p 

c 
o 

CJ 



CM 

w 

CQ 

< 



" 2 




HH O 




CO r- 1 




CO £-> 


< 


< < 


00 


-J u 




U HH 





U, 



2 

O 



Q 
Z 

o 
u 



Q 



\ 



E- 
< 

Cm 

u 



3 

E- 



w 

CO 

3 



CO 



OS 
< 
Q 
Z 

o 

CQ 



3 
O 
£ 
i— i 

CO 
(In 



P 
O 

cO 



< 
CO 



< 

CO 



< 

CO 







p 
o 

cq 



P 
O 

■e 

CO 
r* 

o 
o 

CQ 

Tj 

cd 

OS 



a> 



O 

CQ 



P 

o 

cO 

P 
CD 
to 

to 

cO 

o 

o 

Oh 



p 
u 
p 
o 

CQ 



o 

43 
CO 

a: 
to 

0) 

C 






< 

CO 



* 


* 


* 


* 


CQ 


CQ 


CQ 


CQ < 


CO 


CO 


co 


CO CO 


00 


ti 


bfl 




p •« 


p - 


P •> 


P •> 


•H P 


•H P 


•H P 


•H p 


45 o 


X o 


45 O 


45 O 


P -H 


P -H 


+-> -H 


P -H 


CO +-> 


CO P 


cd p 


cd p 


43 cO 


42 cd 


43 cd 


43 cd 


W> 


bo 


bO 


bo 


♦> cO b/) 


♦> cd bo 


•> cO bO 


•> cd bo 


W)ft c 


bO Ph C 


bO Ph P 


bO Ph P 


P O -H 


P O -H 


P O -H 


P O -H 


•H p X 


•H p 45 


•H f-i 45 


•H H 45 


+-> Ph tO 


P Ph tO 


P» Ph tO 


■P Ph tO 


CO -H 


CO -H 


cd tH 


cd >H 


O CD 4n 


O CD 4-1 


O 4-1 


O 4h |. 


XI ^ H 


45 4n pH 


43 4-1 i-H 


43 4-1 h i 


•H i— 1 


•H t— ( 


•H i—t 


•H i-H 1 


rH tH CD 


!— 1 r-t CD 


i— 1 i—l CD 


rH i—l CD 


cd T3 45 


« tj x 


cd T3 45 


cd T3 45 


P I— 1 tO 


p «-• to 


P --I to 


P ■-■ tO 


O -H 


O -H 


O -H 


O -H 


•H 5 - 


•H ^ *> 


•H S « 


■H S *> 


+-> (30 


P bO 


P bd 


P bO 


ttf u? C 


CO to- c 


cd to p 


cd els' p 


CD •!- 


CD >H 


CD -H 


CD -H 


f-i X 45 


P 45 45 


f-i 45 45 


H 45 45 


O to to 


CJ to to 


o to to 


o to to 


>H -H 


CD -H -H 


CD >H «H 


CD -H -H 


OS 4-1 *H 


OS 4-1 <+H 


OS 4-1 4h 


OS 4-1 4-1 


A 


«\ 


•l 


•s 


i bo 


i bfi 


i bo 


i bO 


"O p 


T3 P 


T3 p 


T3 P 


rH -H 


i-i -H 


i— 1 -H 


i-H »H 


•H 45 


•H ,£5 


•H 45 


•H 45 


* ti 


s +J 


^ P 


2 p 


cd 


cd 


cd 


cd 


UfiP 43 


u27 43 


w!t 43 


u!T 43 


-c >.: 


X - 


X * 


45 -> 


to bO 


to bo 


to bO 


to bO 


;H p 


■H P 


•H p 


•H P 


4-1 -h bO 


4-1 -H bO 


4-1 >h bfi 


4H -H bO 


X P 


45 P 


45 P 


45 P 


■> tO 'H 


•> tO «H 


« tO -H 


- tO -H 


C^.H X 


bO-H 45 


bO-H 4; 


bO-H 45 


P 4-i to 


p 4n to 


P 4h to 


P 4-i to 


•H «H 


■H -H 


•H -H 


•H >H 


p •> 4h 


P * 4-1 


P -4h 


P •> 4n i 


rt C h 


cd p h 


cd P i-H 


Cd P rH 1- 


O O i-t 


O O rH 


O O i-H 


O O i-H 1 


43 -H CD 


43 -H CD 


43 -H CD 


43 -H CD 


ti •*= 


P 45 


P 45 


P> 45 


rH CO tO 


i— ( cO to 


i— i cd to 


i— i cd to 


CO bO 


cO bO 


cd bo 


cd bo 


C CO 13 


P CO nd 


p cd T3 


p cd ti 


O P, CD 


O Ph CD 


O Ph CD 


O Ph CD 


•HOP 


•H O 4-» 


•HOP 


•HOP 


P P o 


■P f-l O 


*-> u o 


P P. O 


cO Ph-h 


Cd Ph -H 


cd Ph-h 


cd P.-H 


CD P 


CD f-t 


CD H 


CD H 


P CD P 


fl CD +-> 


P CD P 


H CD P 


CJ 4-1 (/) 


O 4-1 v) 


O 4-1 7) 


cj 4-i to 


CD -H CD 


CD -H CD 


CD -H CD 


CD -H CD 


PS rH P 


OS i-l fH 


OS r-j H 


OS rH H 



CQ 







to 












to 










CD 


CD 










to 


rH 










•H 


f- 




to 




T3 


U 


3 




S 




O 








cO 




u 


CD 


CD 




CD 






45 


T3 




U 




CD 


P 


•H 




P 




P-, 




P 




to 


P 


CO 


O 








•H 


U 


P 


CD 




H 


to 






45 




CD 


cd 


p 


P 


P 


CD 


P 


CQ 


•H 


o 




> 


cd 






CD 


4-1 


O 


2 


T3 


to 


•r— > 


O 


43 




O 


H 


43 




CO 


45 


c_) 


CD 


3 


rH 




to 




P 


to 


rH 


T3 


CD 


CD 


CO 




CO 


CD 


U 


Ph 


2 


P 


4h 


P 


4-1 


cd 




•H 




O 




CJ 


rH 


to 


T) 


P 


i— ( 




rH 


CO 


P 


CD 


rH 


P 


< 


CQ 


cO 


T3 


< 


•H 



p 
o 

•H 
P 

cd 
o 

•H 
4h 

•H 
tO 

to 

cd 



bO 

P 

•H 
P 
CD 

g 

P 
O 

c 

cd 
CD 

H 

cd 

TJ 
CD 
P 

cd 

•H 

to 

CD 

H3 



45 
P 

4h 
O 

P 

o 

•H 
P 
P 

o 

Oh 
* 



2-9 



Cape Cod's coastal waters are periodically degraded by oil spills. 
In fact, large areas had been closed to shellfishing in the Buzzards 
Bay area because of hydrocarbon contamination at the time of publi- 
cation of the draft plan. These areas have since been re-opened, but 
it is expected that oil problems could increase in the coming years 
unless new federal regulations on oil tanker safety are effectively 

enforced. 

i 

Point Source Discharges 

While most of the water quality problems identified and anticipated 
on Cape Cod are related to non-point sources, there are several point 
sources under NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) 
permits . 

The discharges are summarized in Table 2.2 "Discharges to Surface Wa- 
ters: Cape Cod Basin." Because of the recent revisions to the Ocean 
Sanctuaries Act strengthening prohibitions against point source dis- 
charges, it is not expected that any new municipal discharges will be 
allowed. Existing discharges should be eliminated wherever possible 
by hookup to the proposed Buzzards Bay/Wareham regional collection 
system. This appears particularly feasible in the case of the Massa- 
chusetts Maritime Academy. 

It is recommended in the "Water Quality Management" section of this re- 
port dealing with non-point sources that a general permit program be 
considered to control agricultural and stormwater runoff. This would 
provide an enforcement mechanism of particular value in the inland 
waters designated "Low Flow Waters." 

Monitoring Recommendations 

The Cape Cod Water Quality Plan is primarily concerned with preventing 
water degradation from non-point sources largely through non-structural 
control measures. Evaluation of the effectiveness of such a program is 
dependent upon a continuing comprehensive monitoring program. 

The comprehensive program should be designed to serve two functions: 
public health surveillance and analysis of long-term environmental/ 
water quality trends. Monitoring projects that should be conducted 
under each of these functions are as follows: 

Public Health Surveillance - to assure that water supplies, recreational 
waters and shellfishing areas presently meet established standards 
for the protection of public health. 

a. Private water supplies - a full time chemist in the County Health 
laboratory should test private well samples for bacterial and 
chemical constituents specified by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 
within the limitations of lab facilities, (exclusive of heavy metals 
and organic compounds) . The number and location of sample points to 
be specified in a work program developed in cooperation with County 
Health, CCPEDC, town boards of health and DEQE. Assistance in sample 
collection provided in first year by CCPEDC. 

2-10 



CM 

CM 

UJ 
_! 

CO 

< 





w 




E- 




2 




*£. 




o 




u 




UJ 




U- CJ 




O Oi 




< 




uj X 




CU CJ 




X CO 




H M 




Q 




CJ 




2 




t-l OS 




> UJ 




i-h H 




UJ < 




u s 




UJ 


, ^ 


CSS 


r^ 




r-~- 




CTi 




r-( 




s - y 




2 


Q 


i— i 


CL 


CO 


U 


< 




CQ 


3= 




O 


Q 


J 


O 


uu 


CJ 




UJ 




Cu 




< 




u 

1 




CO 


X 


aJ 


E- 


UJ 


HH 


H 


J 


< 


1— H 


3: 


cj 




< 


UJ 


UU 


CJ 




< 




u. 




oi 




r) 




CO 




o 




H 


X 




H 


CO 


i— i 


UJ 


J 


CJ 


< 


DS 


cu 


< 


l-H 


oc 


u 


cj 


I-H 


CO 


2 


(— 1 
Q 


§ 



•\ 












co 

1 CO 






1 




T3 


















# 








x 












3 E- 




o 


03 




C 


















E 








P CU 1 






P 






O rH 




p 


CD 


•(-> 


03 


| 


X 












u 


3 








e 




-3 


•H 




CD 


O 4h •« 






rH 


C 




<D 


4-i 






1 






cu 


E 








to •> P 




£ 


s 




W) O 4-1 lo • 


to 


o 


CD 


LOr-l 


•H 




• 


E 






p 


• H 


rH 






CO o 




03 


P 




P 


•W Q 


e 


•H 




3 


Q 




rH 




rH 


■H 


CD 




c 


X 


,o 






m co 4h 






CD 




03 


^t- O 


p 


X 


T3 


rH 


O 


CO 


<D 




CD 




P 




•H 


o3 


4h 


T3 




C -H 




E 


cu 




X 


i— I 03 


o 


p 


C 


4-1 


CQ 


rO 


> 




+J 


o 


03 




3 


E 




C 




O *> r-i 


• 


CD 






CD 


• 


4h • 




03 


4h 










03 


+-> 


•H 








p 


03 




•H CMO 


c 


P 






to 


T3 P 


•H 


13 




UJ 


rH 


O 


O 


• 


2 




> 




C 


U 









P r-i U 


bo 


10 


• 




•H 


• Cm O 


rH 


CD 


bo 




O 


•*-> 


•)-» 


C 


<D 


w 







CU 


cu 


to 


CD 




03 CJ 


P 


X 


Cl) 




T3 


CM D04-I 


O 


G 


C 




4h 






o 


•P 


rH 


rH 




CD 


g 




^ 




• H i-H 


03 


to 


bO 


• 






o 


•H 


■H 


• 




+-> 


U 


■H 


to 


CD 


rH 




3 


E 


V) 


3 


• 


P "Cti 


X. 




P 


13 


X 


••> O P 




e 


X 


X 


+-> 


c 


a. 


■M 


o3 


T3 


03 




P 


3 


p 


-r-> 


E 


•H CO O 


o 


3 


o3 


CD 


U 


T3 o CU 


rH 


P 


V) 


r-i 


CD 


CD 


2: 


03 


2 


rH 






CD 


to 


•H 


03 


rH 


£ CO 


CO 


<D 


X 


i— 1 


03 


CU O to 

53 « 


03 


CD 


03 


C 


to 


3 


Q 


C 




O 


rM 




JD 




E 


rH 


o 


•H H U- 


•H 


C 


U 


CD 


CD 


o 


P 


^ 


o 




rH 




•H 


T3 




O 






-3 


•H 


<D 


4h 


l—t 


13 




t/) 


O 




CTi to 


CD 


CD 






4) 


<4H 


X 


E 


CD 


rH 


■\ 


• 


X 


c 


rH 


e« 


. < 


" tJ 




T3 


•H 


c 


P 


O P 


4h 


*T3 


CD 


u 


rH 


«+H 


XJ 


o3 


+J 


CD 


-o 


cu 


rH 


03 




E 


i— 1 


+-> LOC 


r-4 





T3 


03 


o 


O -H 






i—t 


CD 


03 


UJ 




+J 


a3 


T3 


rj 


bo 


03 




P 


cu 


G 


C Q o3 


03 


P 




U 


4-1 


O • E 


T3 


to 


+-> 


■P 






T3 


C 


C 


C 


03 


rH 


> 


E 


c 


p 


O 


O 


C 


CD 


T3 






" tO .H 


C 


03 


P 


03 


to 




CD 


o 


•H 


3 




03 




3 


CD 






3 CQ h 


o 


i— 1 


CD 





to 


^O i— I 


03 


X 


O 


3 


+-> 


• 


<—i 


CJ 


rH 




CD 


X 


to 


E 


3 


•\ 


r-{ 


rH 03 


CO 


& 


W 


rO 


3 


• •* 






X 




•H 


Cm 


p , 


1 


o 


C 


> 


U 


2 


•H 


rH 


|2 


03 


4-1 P P 


03 


E 


03 




O 


T3 P 


CM 


< 




bo 


E 


e 


E 


c 


rH 


3 


O 


to 


O 


C 


Uh 


O 


P 


4-1 o o 





O 





O 


<—i 


• Cm C 
rH O0 CD 


r-{ 


Cu 


CD 


C 


•H 


CD 


cti 


o 


X 


O 


u 


•H 


<—< 


•H 


4m 


rH 


O 


UJ 4h H 


to 


U 


O 


P 


UU 


u 


UJ 


X 


•H 


!— 1 


4-> 


to 


c 


u 


H 


Ch-O 


tu 


E 


UJ 


4h 


P 



U P 














CD C 


rH 




* 








P <D 


CU 




CD 








o3 E 


P 




P 


T—t 






3 P 


03 




to 


O 


CD 




<D 03 


3 




03 


o 


P 




P CD 


CD 




3 


Cm 


to 




to U 


P 








03 




o3 E- 


to 




X 


bO 


3= 




■=" 


o3 


rH 


u 


C 






X 


2= 


03 


o3 


•H 


X 




rH rH 




E 


P 


E 


rH 




03 03 


X 


rH 


•H 


E 


03 




CUXI 


rH 


CU 


c 


•H 


X! 


i—i 


H C 


nJ 


rC 


a 


2 


C 


o3 


CD O 


p 


E- 


C7D 


CO 


O 


E 


H O 


•H 








CD 


rH 


C CD 


C 








CD 





3 CO 


03 


• 


• 


• 


CO 


X 


2 ^ 


CO 


rH 


CM 


to 


* 


E- 







X 


T3 


T3 


cti 


O 


O 


p i-i 


U 


u 


CO O 


rH 


r—i 


C X 


o3 


Cti 


u u 


Cm C 


Cm C 


03 03 


03 03 


Cti Cti 


CQ X 


U U 


U U 



o 
o 
o 

LO 





i-H 

cti 

p 
to 

c 

(H 

cti 
CQ 



O 
O 
O 

CM 














E 






•H 






P 


a- 


3 to 


•H 


rH H 


P 


rH 


rO CO 


•H C 


Cti 


Cti 


> 


s: x 


P X 


E 


E 


to P 


rH P 


• 


c c 


cti U 


to T3 


rH 3 


C cti 


to cti 


cti O 


Cti Cm 


cti U 


CQ U 


U < 


2 < 





c 
p 

3 
O 
CQ 



o 




u 






rH 





CO 


Cm 


C 


Cti 


03 


u 


U 



o 
o 
o 

LO 
CM 





o 




u 


Cti 




T—i 


bO 


o 


c 


CJ 


• H 




rH 


Cti 


p 


o 


p 


o 


o 



U CQ 



rH 

P 

Cti 

3 

p 
to 

cti 



cti 
CU 



C 

3 



O 
O 

o 
o 

LO 
CM 







o 







X 


bO 






cti 


E 


to 


P 





T3 





p 


O 


3 


to 


O 





X 


12 


CO 


CO 



3 
O 
E 

rH 
Cti 
UU 



E 

P 

to 
X 

CO 

E 
3 

•H 
P 
Cti 

3 

cr 

< 



p 


p 


P o 


P o 


CO JD 


cti X) 


P 


CD P 


P Cti 


P cti 


CJ X 


CJ 2C 



o 
o 
o 

to 







to 






CO 









UU 


•H 






^T" 


P 




• 


2 







p 




x: 




CU 





to 







J 


•H 




a 


P 


LL. 


p 












• 


E 


• 


p 


CO 


E 


UJ 


c 


• 


O 


• 


CD 



X CJ 2 CJ 



2-11 



tu w 
O C3 



UJ 

a. 
x 



< 






u 



UJ 
< 



Q 
CX 



O 
►J 



X 
E- 



< 



LO 



• 








•v 








Q 






2 




2 


1 




LO 


1 






u 




LO • 




X 








03 








O 






o 




O 


o 




r^ 




p 






C 




a 


c_ 




1— 1 








•H 








oa 






—1 




i— i 


•H 




c 











o 




o 






c 


O 






e 


E 








I— 1 




IH 




<P 


oa 




CO 


• 


00 






CQ 


• 


CQ 


«K 




- O 


£ 




P. 


o 


P 






p 


03 










r- 






E 




03 






E 




= 




C/> 






o 


E 


O 






o 


P 




c 


, — ., 


c 


/— \ «H 




£ 


rH 


£ 


• H 




— 


P 


c 


P 




P 7) 


(D 




op 


E 


<+-( 




• 


<p 


O 




o 


• 


o 


• 




O 


O 


o 


£ 




o 


o 





o 




P 


> 






03 


•H 









H 






X 




X o 






tp 




O 






tp 




Or, 


. 


2 


03 




p 




i— 1 




P 


p 






p 


03 


p 


03 in 




P 


•H 


p 


E 




p 


»H 


p 


>H 


C 


o x 


X 







* 


O 




3 


0) 


T3 







E 





E -i 




o 


rH 





E 







--< 





rH 


u 


X to 






V) 


to 







P 


(/) 


C 




7) 




c/) 


03 




t/) 


o 


to 


03 




m 


o 


to 


c 


M) 


to 03 


to 






-3 




• 


03 




03 






• 




. 






u 










u 




CJ 


O 


,_ 2 


p 




t/l 


•H 


i— 1 


(/) 


P 


to 






to 


u- 


to 


uu to 




to 




in 


•> 




to 




to 




f 


e x 







P 


i— I 


03 


3 





p 


i— i 




PO 


PO 




P 


f—k 


p 


V) 




p 


rH 


p 


rH 


+J 


O to 


r— 1 




•H 


o 


p 


O 


CX 


•H 


03 




•H 


o 


•H 


O -H 




•H 


03 


• H 


T3 


• 


■H 


03 


.— 


Ed 


•iH 


P -H 


•H 




s 


t/i 


O 


p 


E 


6 


O 




E 


CT> 


E 


en T3 




E 


u 


E 


•H 


00 


E 


P 


E 


p 


0- 


<P T3 


o 




•H 




P 


o 


CD 


•H 







•H 


> — ' 


•H 


w 3 




•iH 





•H 


rH 


CO 


•H 


O 


■H 


o 






p 


• 


^H 







X 


P 


r-l 


uu 




rH 




rH 


p 




rH 


U- 


rH 


O 




i-H 


H 


rH 


H 




-3 









l-H 


»\ 


ex 








• 




• 




• t/1 


• 








00 


*s 










aj 


oo c 


u 


00 


P 


X 


c 


tfl 


T3 


P 


•\ 


E 


p 


Q, 


P 


CX 


in 


P 


^ 


P 




£ 


p 


^ 


P 


•^ 




P rt 


•H 


p 


c 


03 


0) 


o 


E 


e 


CO 


U 


e 


E 


e 


E rH 


to 


£H 


CO 


E 








r - 


00 


c 


00 


oi 


oj 


P 


03 








wx 


03 





00 


,o 











03 





o 


co 





r—i 


oc 





00 





00 


• iH 


X to 


P 


X 


3 


i— i 


o 


CX 




3 




«P 


3 


P 


3 


P u 


rH 


3 




3 


X 


o 


r- 




3 




c 


o X 


o 


o 


i— i 


P 


P 




2 


rH 


*» 


•H 


i— ( 




rH 


•H 


oo 


i — i 


■ 


rH 


03 


p 


-H 


^ 


rH 


»\ 





t/> c 





75 


<p 


P 


p 


t3 


O 


<P 


co 


rH 


<p 


-3 


<P 


T3 OO 


o 


iu 


CO 


t4- 





p 


(P 


00 


(|H 


00 


E 


•H -H 


<— 1 


■ H 


<p 


0) 


■H 


c 


i— i 


<P 


co 


o 


op 


c 


«P 


£ O 


P 


tp 


CO 


<P 


i-H 


•|H 


Mh 


00 


4-1 


00 


E 


Q c/> 


UJ 


T3 


UJ 


(/) 


e 


03 


tu 


UJ 


E- 


u 


UJ 


03 


UJ 


o3 f-H 


CX 


UJ 


H 


UJ 


P 


£ 


UJ 


£-• 


UJ 


r- 


< 



P 






P 




















P 






P 






03 






o3 






2 






5 




















P 






P 






to 


rH 




tfl 






03 


03 




03 






^ 


P 
3 
P 




.3= 






X 




X 






P 


i— i 


t-i 


P 


r—t 


<-H 


03 


3 


03 


03 


03 


03 


P 


o 


E 


P 


E 


E 


•H 


03 


P 


• H 


P 


P 


£ 


3 





£ 








03 


cr 


X 


03 


X 


e 


CO 


< 


H 


00 


H 



-o 
p 

a3 

N 
N 

3 



X 

03 



CO CQ 



X 




p- 




hH 




J 




< 


X 


D- 


P 


hH 


3 


U 


O 


H 


E 


2 


rH 


g 


03 
U- 



p 


r* 
O 

3 -3 

o3 O 
2 00 



P £ 













p E 


o 




r3 P 


2 




2 03 


H 







v ' 




P P 






</; H 


i-H 




03 


03 


/ — > 


S X 


P 


to 


P 


3 





X 03 


P 


oo 


P *3 


rH 


p 


03 C 


3 


03 


P O 


o 


X 


•H 


03 


u 


£ 


3 


tn 


03 00 


cr 


•H 


00 ^— ' 


< 


T3 



-a 

£ 
O 

o- 

to 

2 

P 



T3 

O 
U 


ex x 

03 03 
U CO 



-a 


T3 


o 


O 


u 


u 


rH 


rH 


03 


o3 


(X £ 


CX £ 


03 co 


03 03 


U U 


U U 



T3 
O 
U 



£. X 
03 03 
U CQ 



£ 

P ^ 

r^J P 

U O 

O P 

d co u 



03 ^ 

P (^ 

3 

P 00 

rH P 

3 03 

O X 

03 

3 tf 

Q--H 

< T3 



£ 

"3 
P 

03 

,* 

7) 

03 

X P 



P £ 



p E 

C3 p 

2 £ 

P P 

o3 

2 b 

x rt 

P -3 

03 C 

^ c 

•H 

C 
03 CO 

oo ^^ 



T3 

C oc 

3 P 

O 03 

P X 
OC 

I V) 

E «H 

m Q 



o 




o 




O 




o 




o 


o 




o 


o 






o 






o 




o 




o 




o 




o 


o 




c 


o 






c 






■^r 




o 

o 
o 

LO 

rH 








LT) 

rH 




o 

<* 

rH 


o 
o 

CN 

rsi 

CM 

LO 




o 

CM 


o 

o 

o 
o 






c 

c 

LO 

1 

CX 

o 

i-H 




i*H 


-d 






















-3 











r* 


c: p 


p 









P 














P 








> 





i-^ C? 


o3 P 


00 






















03 











3 


CM O 


3 03 


T3 


X 




2 




00 






• H 




3 


X 






X 


X 


»-^ 6 


U 















£ 







P 




CJ 


in 




l-H 






<^ 


E 


X 


p 




00 




•H 




£ 


P 


(N 




•H 




03 


•3 


^ 


T3 O 


P O 




03 








3= 




•H 







P 


U. 




P 


o 


P 


rt —i 


tO -H 


•3 







•d 








P 





oa 








3 


c 


t/> 


O 


o3 P 


£ 


to 


X 


E 


£ 


• 




03 


i-H 




03 


X 


fr 


P 


3= 


^ 


z: > 


O o3 


03 





P 


o3 


O 


H 




xr- 


X 


rH 


O 





i— i 




P 


o 


U P 


i— i 


Qi 


• P 




•H 




I-H 








U 


•H 


o 


3 


2 


E- 


-3 a 


oo 







r— 1 


P 


t/> 


X 


o 


rH 


l—< 


<n 




2 


X 





o 




c 


• 


> 


t~* 


•H 





•H 


P 


o 


03 


03 


P 


• 


-3 





03 


i-H 


p 


- p 


CO • 





O 





P 


> 


£ 


X 


E 


£ 


•H 


00 


E 


p 


3 


rH 


E 


l-H -H 


• p 


rH 


s 


03 


03 


•H 








03 


03 


£ 


. 


03 


03 


cr 


•H 





tr. E 


=> X 


U 


2: 


Uu 


3= 


a 


X 


00 


U 


U 


3 


D 


00 


_ 


< 


3S 


E 


hH 35 



X 


•p 

4 

E 
03 
CO 



01 


3 


• H 


O 


E 

E 


g 





03 


X 


X 



2-12 



b. Bathing Beaches (fresh and saltwater) - periodic testing by 
County Health Department of bacterial concentrations at request 
of local boards of health.* 

c. Shellfish Areas - regularly monitored by DEQE, with some samples 
to be tested by County Health Department where necessary to sup- 
plement DEQE program, at request of town.* 

d. Public water supplies - chemical analyses required by SDWA per- 
formed annually by DEQE. Bacteriological analyses performed by 
County Health Department.* 



Analysis of Long-term Environmental and Water Quality Trends - to 
detect and analyze trends in ground and surface water quality 
in order to identify problem areas and improve planning and 
management techniques. 

a. Groundwater Quality - All water supply data obtained by County 
Health, DEQE and private studies to be collected and computerized 
for analysis by CCPEDC. Technical assistance and computer re- 
sources to be provided by USGS. 

b. Coastal Water Quality - Bacteriological and chemical analysis of 
coastal segments and comparison with standards set for classifi- 
cation will be performed at 5-year intervals by DWPC. Effluents 
under discharge permits tested bi-annual ly. 

County Health and DEQE shellfish data and DWPC segment data to 
be compiled by CCPEDC to assist public and private agencies in 
identifying wastewater management problem areas and facilities 
needs . 

c. Pond Quality - A program for periodic evaluation of ecological 
conditions of the great ponds is to be developed. A minimal 
effort would include the following testing procedures: 

— temperature/dissolved oxygen profiling These tests to 
--secchi disc readings be during peak 

--chlorophyll-a analyses use periods 

--phosphorus analyses 

--nitrogen analyses (ammonia, nitrate, and organic) 

Tests should be performed, at a mimimum of once every five years. 
Annual or semi-annual performance of these would be preferable. 

Funding possibilities for such a testing program would include 
direct County participation or town-County cooperation. Work 
could be performed by a subcontractor or County personnel. More 
information on the costs of such a program should be developed in 
the on-going 208 planning program during Fiscal Year 1979. 

* Continuation of present effort 

2-13 



The Mass. DWPC Lake Classification Program, scheduled to begin 
analysis of Cape Cod ponds in 1980, should be given priority for 
funding by the Secretary of Environmental Affairs so that complete 
baseline data will be available on all surveyed ponds by 1985. 

Detailed analyses necessary to diagnose water quality problems and 
develop abatement programs under the state or EPA lake restoration 
program should be performed on an individual basis, funded either 
by towns or private concerns. 

d. Special Source Studies - The location of leachate plumes beneath 
inland sewer treatment plant disposal sites and sanitary landfills 
is a costly and highly specialized science. Knowledge of ground- 
water hydrology is necessary to design a successful monitoring well 
network. It is necessary to penetrate the full thickness of the 
aquifer to establish the vertical dimensions of the plumes, neces- 
sitating costly deep drilling programs in some cases. To date the 
only complete plume location program is the study of the Otis sewer 
treatment facility being conducted by the USGS . 

Plume studies utilizing the methodology being developed and demon- 
strated by USGS are necessary in cases when sources are upgradient 
of water supply wells. A county water quality surveillance program 
involving contracts with towns and USGS may be the most cost effec- 
tive and reliable approach to landfill and sewer treatment plant 
monitoring. The feasibility of such a program will be investigated 
in the continuing 208 planning program. Until a specific project 
has been developed it is recommended that Barnstable County Health 
Department activities in this area be limited to monitoring private 
wells downgradient of, and nearby, landfills. 

e. Water Table--Zone of Transition Monitoring - The water table obser- 
vation well network established by the USGS in the Cape Cod Water 
Study should be used for continuing water table monitoring under the 
direction of CCPEDC. Computerized data storage and analysis will 

be provided by USGS. 

Zone of transition wells, monitoring the location of the fresh/ 
saltwater interface will continue to be maintained and tested by 
USGS bi-annual ly. 

f. Toxic organic assessment (See draft Chapter 3, p. 3-43) - Groundwater 
samples from observation wells under the following areas should be 
screened for toxic organic compounds: 

--parking lot catch basin 

--golf course or power line where pesticides/herbicides are used 
--landfill-when plume has been located by specific conductance 
--septic leach facility in which chemical scouring agents containing 
chlorinated hydrocarbons has been used 

These analyses should be performed by DEQE or USGS as a special study. 

Recommendations on financial and institutional arrangements necessary 
to implement this comprehensive monitoring program are found under 
the "Management Agencies" discussion. 

2-14 



Wastewater Management 



The primary wastewater management problem on Cape Cod is failure of on- 
site disposal systems . This plan is concerned with two aspects of on-site 
system "failure." The first is mechanical failure, in which raw 
sewage breaks out onto the land surface or overflows into water bodies . 
The second is water quality degradation caused by the underground flow 
of leachate from on-site systems. 

The sewer service area recommendations presented in the following sec- 
tions are based primarily on the abatement of mechanical failures where 
rehabilitation of on-site systems appears to be infeasible. No data 

are available, however, to enable the isolation of water quality 
problems due to properly operating septic systems from mechanically 
failing systems. For this reason, no sewers have been recommended on 
the basis of water quality problems alone. 

The water quality impacts of properly operating systems will need to be 
carefully watched through continuing surface and groundwater monitoring 
programs. Should a critical water quality problem be detected in the 
future, sewer construction should be considered. It is questionable, 
however, that sewers would be totally effective in abating such water 
quality problems because of the numerous additional non-point sources 
associated with high density development. Towns are advised to prevent 
nitrate buildup in water supply wells by controlling housing densities 
(see "Protecting Critical Water Resources") . 

Wastewater management recommendations are presented in four subsections: 

— Sewer Construction Projects 

--Neighborhood Solutions and Septage Treatment 
--On-Site System Management 
--Environmental Impact 



2-15 



Sewer Construction Projects 

General Recommendations 

The draft water quality plan identifies three categories of problem 
areas in the Cape Cod study area. It recommends the selection of one 
of three wastewater management alternatives for each town, ranging from 
preventive action to limited sewering. 

Upon certification of the final 208 plan, the scope and purpose of 201 
facilities plans will be to obtain further information necessary to imple- 
ment the 208 plan's recommendations. Future 201 studies should refine 
sewer service areas through a more detailed needs survey and analyze 
treatment and disposal alternatives. Future facility plans must be 
consistent with the 208 recommendations in order to receive federal and 
state construction grants. 

The following recommendations on facilities needs should be used as the 
basis for future facilities plans: (See Wastewater Management Problem 
Areas Map and Sewer Service Areas Map, reprinted from draft plan) 

--Centralized collection and .treatment systems are recommended 
for Category 1 problem areas. Future phases have been in- 
cluded to encompass adjacent Category 2 areas. This should 
not preclude consideration of non-sewered alternatives for 
adjacent Category 2 areas. (See Sewer Service Area Map 2.2.) 
The towns and regions for which new or extended sewer systems 
are proposed are: Buzzards Bay/Wareham, So. Sagamore/Sandwich, 
Falmouth, Yarmouth, Chatham, Barnstable, Provincetown/North 
Truro . 

--Improved on-site systems or small collection and treatment 
systems using package treatment plants should be constructed 
in Category 2 problem areas. The full range of decentralized 
alternatives should be examined for these areas (see "Neigh- 
borhood Solutions and Septage Treatment" section) . 

--Additional water quality analysis is necessary in Category 3 
areas, as is evaluation of zoning and implementation of non- 
structural controls (see on-site system management program and 
land use controls) . 

--In areas not designated as problems areas, or-site system man- 
agement and land use controls should be implemented. 

--Septage treatment facilities are recommended for all towns 
except Barnstable and Chatham, which accept septage at their 
sewage treatment plants. 

Criteria for 201 Studies 

The following criteria for consistency between 201 plans and the 208 
plan should be used in preparing the scope of work for Step 1 facil- 
ities plans, and in evaluating facility plan recommendations . 



2-16 



I 



z 


o 


CO 


CO 


2 


2 


O 


o 


9»- 


<6 


<^ 


za. 


LANNI 
EVELO 


o-o 


R^ 


u5 


o 


UJZ 


Q-O 


<o 


OliJ 




>* 


T 


^— 




c 


(A I 


■J 


•^— 


o 
o 


0) */ 

CO 


CD 


3 4 


-Q 


o J 


O 


o 1 




</> 


(0 

c 


o 


c 


5 i 


CD 





2 


0; 




UJ 


< 




o 


U 




< 


(T 




<t 


< 




'■4. 




Q 


> 




2 


cc 


LiJ 


UJ 

o 

UJ 


LJ 


._l 


_l 


i — 

i 

LI 


o 




h- 


Q. 




co 






< 






£ 







The Needs Survey 

The needs survey should include the following investigations: 

--collection and mapping of site-specific septage pumping 
information for a minimum of one year. 

--determination of the type and uge of on-site systems in use in 
problem areas (from recent disposal permits, field investigation 
of the systems pumped during the study period, septage haulers' 
reports, and homeowner surveys). 

--soils and water table data (from recent disposal permits, USGS 
water table and topographic maps) and additional borings as 
necessary to determine whether on-site disposal is technically 
feasible in problem areas. 

--assessment of ground and surface water quality, with additional 
samplings to supplement 208 data in problems areas. 

--field inspection of a minimum of 10% of failed systems reported 
within the study period. 

Scope of Alternatives Evaluation 

--The Step 1 facility plan must evaluate and develop alterna- 
tives to solve all problem areas indicated on Map 4.1 of the 
draft plan, but need not be limited to those problem areas. 

r-A decentralized abatement alternative must also be presented 
for proposed sewer service areas. 

--An on-site system management program must be designed for all 
non-sewered areas. 

--A minimum of two septage treatment alternatives should be pre- 
sented: one assuming implementation of the sewer construction 
recommendations and one assuming selection of the non-sewered 
alternative. Regional septage facilities should be considered 
(see p. 2-38 for septage planning boundaries). 

The degree of treatment and method of effluent disposal on Cape Cod 
must achieve the following goals to the extent possible : 

1. Preservation of drinking water quality in groundwater resources 
within, or upgradient of, recharge areas for public water supply wells, 
areas dependent upon private water supplies, and within potential water 
supply development areas. (See Map 5.3, 5.4 and 5.6 of draft plan.) 

2. Non-degradation of the coastal embayments or inland lakes and ponds 
by nutrient enrichment. 

3. Non-degradation of existing high quality of coastal waters by 
direct or indirect discharge. 



2-18 



4. Maintenance of natural water table and pond water levels and 
prevention of saltwater intrusion; and 

5. Return of resources, including fresh water, organic and nutrient 
materials to their natural cycles . 

The following policies shall be the basis upon which 201 facility 
plans will be evaluated for consistency with the 208 plan . 

1. All treatment systems shall incorporate septage treatment to the 
extent feasible. 

2. Land disposal is the preferred disposal alternative. 

3. Spray irrigation is the preferred disposal method. Evaluation of 
land availability for spray-irrigation shall include golf courses, 
parks, greenbelts, highway and power line easements. 

4. The following effluent limitations shall be applied: Within, or 
upgradient of, recharge areas for existing water supplies, private water 
supplies or potential water supply development areas (see 208 draft plan 
Map 5), effluent reaching the water table shall meet drinking water 
standards for all organic and inorganic chemical parameters except ni- 
trate; the maximum concentration of nitrate shall be 5.0 ppm. All 
alternatives shall be compared for cost-effectiveness against spray 
irrigation which has been demonstrated to return water with nitrate con- 
centrations of 2 parts per million or less to the water table. This 
requirement is considered to be consistent with Case 1 of EPA regulations 
(see "Water Quality Assessment" section) . 

5. Rapid infiltration following secondary treatment shall be permitted 
only where spray irrigation or other tertiary processes are not feasible, 
and where no pond, stream, or coastal waters will be adversely affected. 
Provisions for upgrading of treatment to advanced wastewater treatment 
processes shall be included in the facility plan, to be implemented in 
the event that disposal threatens water supplies or surface waters. 
Because of the integral relationship of groundwater with surface waters 
and coastal waters a Cape Cod rapid infiltration of primary treated 
effluent should not be allowed. 

6. Evaluation of sites for rapid infiltration disposal shall include a 
minimum of two deep test holes to the depth of the assumed aquifer thick- 
ness or to the point at which a confining layer is encountered. Evaluation 
of mounding effects should include explanation of underlying assumptions 
regarding aquifer thickness, water table slope, lateral hydraulic conduc- 
tivity and ratio between lateral and vertical conductivity. For each 
assumption the possible range of values should be stated and the effect 

of an improper assumption on the final result explained. 

7. A monitoring system to test quality of leachate at the water table 
and to trace the movement of a leachate plume shall be installed and 
maintained at every disposal site. Design should be based on techniques 
presented in EPA manual titled "Procedures Manual for Ground Water Moni- 
toring at Solid Waste Disposal Facilities" (Aug. 1977). 



2-19 
















fl'i 




>» "11 


4^ 


c to 4 


3 +" 


3 8 ' 


sE i 


«8 - 


1z w 


|8 1 


5 s i 



) 



8. Selection of a treatment or disposal alternative which does not 
conform to these policies must be justified by detailed environmental 
assessment showing how the water quality goals will be achieved. 



Population Projections 

Population should be based on 208 program projections unless specific 
information is supplied by the engineer to substantiate a modification 
of these figures. 



Flow Projections 

Standard projections of per capita flows at 100 gcd are considered 
excessive. Winter water use rates should be evaluated and compared 
to nationally documented wastewater flows of 50-75 gcd (Alford, 1977) 
in projecting flows. Information on seasonal and year-round occupancy 
found in the report "Development Projections for Cape Cod" (1976) 
should also be taken into consideration. Infiltration assumptions 
should not be included in per capita flows, and should be substantiated. 

Retro- fitting of water saving devices should be required by sewer use 
ordinance prior to hookup. No allowance should be made for increased 
per capita consumption. 



Sewer Service Areas and Facility Planning Boundaries 

Construction of new or expanded central sewer systems is recommended 
for seven towns and regions, under the "Limited Sewering" alternative 
described in the draft plan. Facilities planning boundaries for the 
sewering systems are indicated below. Additional considerations for 
septage treatment are also indicated. Sewer service areas are indicated 
in Map 2.2. Note: Non-sewered solutions should also be considered for 
"future phase" areas. 



TOWN 



FACILITY PLANNING BOUNDARY 



Provincetown - Truro 



Town boundaries, Provincetown and 
Truro. Must consider septage from 
Wellfleet. 



Chatham 



Town boundary. Must consider capa- 
city to accept septage from southern 
Harwich. 



Yarmouth 



Town boundaries. Must consider 
septage from Dennis. 



2-21 



TOWN 



FACILITY PLANNING BOUNDARY 



Barnstable 



Falmouth 



Sandwich - So. Sagamore 



Buzzards Bay - Wareham 



Barnstable town boundaries. Must 
consider septage from Mashpee. 

Town boundaries plus Otis Air Force 
Base. Must consider septage from 
Mashpee, Sandwich and Bourne. 

Town of Sandwich, special water 
pollution abatement district to 
be formed to coincide with So. 
Sagamore Water District. Must 
consider septage from Mashpee 
and Bourne Village. 

Buzzards Bay - special water pol- 
lution abatement district to be 
formed. Existing capacity at 
Wareham Treatment Plant to be 
utilized. 



Table 2.3 presents a summary of proposed sewer facilities, flows, 
costs and comments on the status of current facilities planning. 



2-22 



) 









^3 io 












i a) -a 


x 










O »h i g U 


00 t3 CjH 








+j 


u 3 i-4 <d re 


H T3 O • 








P v) 


p re *o o p m 


PJ +J 








O -H 


re s cd o oo ni ^ 


CD CD Ph 






oo 


i— i 


X X 3 rtj 


P "3- Ph CD 






13 


T3 4_, 


C O T3 00 CQ CD 


•H O CO 






< 


<£ <1> G X • 


O • 00 C C 


00 Mh (j 






re +-» d) +j o^ 


•HP CD C 00 


P rH 00 P 






H 


X </> £ . H r-» 


PCooPOTbCCD 


CD rt -H 






CO 


jj oj k a> 


O CD -H X -H ^ -H ?H 


o p 








P P O O >— I 


re oo cd p re D 


P +_) rt r^ 00 








£ a* re .h 


CD E o z >^ +-> 


J UJ bOh h 








O 0) rH P p 


OHOlOCDOCTlD 


O S cd O cr> 








H h ft ft.-H 


Z P^XI P rH +J CQ <P 


E-i ^-^X 3: rH 








1 CD 10 


_ _ 


* "**" * * ■ ■ — ----- - — — — 


" ' ■-■—---■-■- — — 






el t/i X re 


13 PT) CD ^ 

x t3cd rec xcS 
re h +j re i3 -h n 


oo i i 








o x +-> p 


rt CD oo i X i 








Xt) -H 00 P o 


X P. -H P fl 1/) 








p p < -H • 


oapDre bo co h ti 

C O-HP C XP-h EcR 

oocD3Pp:.HPo.Hre^ , 


Ph X CD 00 -H -H 








> P O p -H .. 00 X 

P U P O n P P 

p p p -h p ^ re -h 


rH CU T3 00 rH T3 








rH O p CD rt 








Tj 6 OCD4->-HCD3X(D 


(DP P P P <P 






CO 


m *t> p p re T a,o 

p W O X L X TO 


HPXoaEojCJ.r-, CDrH 


o • tj cr o 






E- 


rero-t-JCDPHoJox^x 


TJ X i3 






Z 


ooOPOP^OP-, 

-o o o .-i r ^ re 


NicD •Hcre0p H HProre 


P 00 P rt rH +J 






QJ 


niho cu ft, cci ftH 2: 0) 


O -H <^i -H rH p • 






§ 
" 


pprecDHOO o tu 


• H<P+JO 13000 








o <d o t_ p 


oa cl,x p p re x oo 


P -H Ph <^t ' rH 5 .H P 






o 


CrOOOXS^+J 


, Mh re 00 o\° O Ph X CD 


rtt3 J) ft'O 3 "P-h 






u 


+J +-» s P 
h i3 x o g P. re 


'PoooE-HLnpre h 


Pooort0O0rtoo 








O Prt rH O 13 o 


E o ni x p P 








^ 'i ^ B* CO ,° r_ ' 


CD P X P </> CD <P 


re +-> -h oo re oo rH 








pporow^-io, 


PHP'OCDCX-HP'O 


p re oo rH > c re 


• 






4-1 O -H £00 


oo re re cd f-t re i— i ojcdcd 


000P-HrH-H!2OO 








X P 4n a) o P 4h 


OXrHCD rt H P+JX CDX 


P0p-H4->OPOO 








<i/)QiOPfMOO 


U oo ftc2 PhO-hp pp 


<D S^ ^ *-> P CM PhT3 Ph 










p o o 








H 




o o o 








t_) H 




•H O ^ 








W CO 




4-> ^ CN 








>-i o 


# 


° ° ~- 


* 






O CJ 


cd •• r^ K 








OS 




rH X «* Z 








a. 




rH rH -> UJ 












U O -be- 










1 

i— i 


1 

i— 1 


1 






E- 

Z .-J 


x^ 


"*«> -H 

XMh 


"Sv ;H 

XMh 






m <; 


P C 


fj P 


P P 






S Q CO 


re -h c 


« -H p 


re -h p 






E- ZO 

<£ <; Qh 


13 O 


T3 O 


13 O 






CO'H 


CTJH 


CO-ri 






OJ CO 

Ct I— i 


O -H P 


O -H 4-> 


O -H P 






o ci, re 


O Ph re 


O Ph re 






E- Q 


re p 


cd re h 


re p 






CO P P 


CO H P 


co p p 










p 


i 






z 

o 

1__J 


1 

4h re 


•• o 

X'H 


o 

•» i 






o Ph 


re p 


rH E X 






TYPE OF 

construct: 

PROJECT 


p re 


CQ O l o 


r-i 4-1 






p o o u 


CD 00 P 


OP O 






O -H P 


00 rH P 


O oo X 






■H -M 


-0 rH re p E 


, XrH C P 






CO U £ SI 


H O H o rt 


13 00 X O -H 






P >H 


re o p «H x 


P -H »H O 






02 i-H +J rH X 


Kl 00 CD 


p oo oo re 






P >— 1 00 -H +J 


N S T3 V 00 H 


P O 00 P Ph 






X O X -P -H 


3 cd p -h re 


x -h o re re 






LU O 00 P O 


ca z re E S 


CU P Ph Ph O 




lf\ 












Z 












O 












H 


W E- ^-> 




from 

j'ards 






< 


CO t-H Q 


CN 






Q 


O C_) U 




* 




Z 


Cu < 2 


*J 




s 


O Cu *— ' 
cC < 




-H N X 

• p re 






is 


Pu LJ 




rH CQ CQ 






o 












C_) 








j 




s 








OP oo 










IPO > 






(J >- CJ 






rt "^ -rH < 




CO 


X bOrH 


X «^ 


O Tf P P 

• O rt oo ^r 




t— 1 


Z E- 1 2 


p p • 


+J CNJ 


rH ■<-< O P rH 




E— 


t— i t— ( *— ' 


•H (N -H CM 


•H ■ / — \ 


rt x P -h -H • 




t— t 


CO < S 


O • P 


O 00 <Tt 


• h +j Ph4h 4-> 




l_] 


(A ^ i/i 3 


re • > n 


+j -h -h oo 3 




►— 4 


i— i a. o 


Ph -HO 


Ph -H o en 


•H O 13 -O -HO 




(_) 


X <(. X 


re X r- < 


rt r~< r-{ 


p rt bo O X •-( 




< 


w uu. 


U UJ Mh 


CJ U, v-> 


rH Q, E E LU 4-1 




uu 












o 


z 


Gl 


^^ 


. . 




>- 


REGIC 
ATE 




rds Bay 
am 

Step 1 


i— i 

Ph 


4-> 




s 




re 

P ON 


E co 

re 




CO 


O H 


(/) 


rex e 


x c 






'OWN 
ARGE 


Barn 
Step 


Buzz 
Ware 

Begii 
1979 


Chat 

Begi 
1979 






t- t- 




2-23 







+-> 
c 
o 
o 



to 

CN 



►J 
ca 
< 





C 










i rt ^ 










O rH 0) 








P 


rH Jh O CUX 


c 






CO, O X 0) oo 


o 






E- 


O 03 T3 4-> 4-> 4-> r~~- 


•H 






•H CD CD -H CuCTl 


+J 






+-> 0") -4 — » • — 1 . — < CD i— 1 


o 








•H Tj 0) Cu-H CO 


03 








T3 C -H g O 










T3 3 U O CO C f- 


O 








<C <+-! O, O <4H O (Nl 


z 








<D +J .. uff . . 0| ^ 


ppiy j 

Truro 


"c~^In o"t3 " 






?H *+-• / — \ CD CO X) +J 10 > C CO rH 


i o z; t^ +-» cd • 






0J 03 CO T3 « > O C O •(-> -H -H 03 03 Cu 


*-< 1 ' -H 'Jj C7l CO 03 






Jh r-- c v> -h o cd < o3 +j2^ cu 


rt+-> CD •(-> 7i >— ' CO -H-H 






co t3 ai a3 -h +j t3 X rt o3 o co 3 


5 n! ^ nl "wo > u 






CD t-H ,_,+-> a3 <4H » X V) P -H C X<+-l -H CO 
J> CD W O £ "-< O +-> X O fH fir-H +J 


3 X 


CD ^ o CD CD CD 






co ■*-» 


CwJhcD^CODS-'-'-' 






•H X *> fHCti O •HOJCDICUPhCO?-! 


^ 


2 P DT3 £ O C -H 
O «4-i -H < CO T3 1-4 




CO 


+J4J"H+JJJlflin<'0^>4J> 1 + J P<0 CU 


u o 




H 


o3 c d cd P o h <D o3 -h -h o3 .— < 3 -h <+-i +j 


CD Z 


•MX'HCO^CUCCO 

cdh3ccdEo3o3 




z 


C G oS co nao!vij3+J^h(ij[/)*JOn! 


■P 




w 


^•HHOCrtiflO^OPrtUft O 2 


03 C 


U fl! CO P CD H r-H 




S 


<d a a, o -HWiorHOe; co c ^ a> c 


2 -H 


C-H 03O OJcO Cu^30 




s 


+-> T3 I/5-H+JT3 P H c fn CO O <D Ifi O H 

>-t<UX-H4-»C -poJoSoscdoco-h+j -Hrt 




•H +-> 2 CD CN 




o 


-—1 10 


> h ^ o5 a? X "t- 1 




U 


rtX!PT!(!lrJH02 C/)4->CN-H+->034->tO'H 


03 E 


O O X *-> cd +-> 






'H -H Oi-Hr-HCD 4-> rH P (fl S C Ifl f ^ 


O CD 


(-i+jc^mrtj-.H-^ja) 






CU?Hr-tc-HpHaJ6cOCn3coODO CD 3 C • 


•H i— t 


0- 00 h o >-• Cu CD 






ci> o -H as <-h i <+-i aJccti +-> -h cd E O cd as 


•P X 


■M+JJH&/+J.H3E 






?hcoOcDCuO+->+->cD O<UH)O}h(l)0^PV 


•H O 


T3 C C 03 co CJ 






xcuasop^s^O'-Htoaxcuxf-ico&o-HofH 


fH ^ 


COS CDX^HOOS CDO 






HTJ^O o3 +-> O CCJ-hOH E P -h ^ rt "O Curt 


U Cu 


o3^EOOS^X-t-> 






o 


O 








O f> 


O <~s 






E- 


o o 


O' o 






U E- 


x O 


•« o 






W CO 


O vO 


a-, lo 






^ O 


O CN 


a^ (N 






o u 


o 


o 






os 


-. as 


•> OS 






O- 


<* z 


CM Z 

i-H UJ 








•&e- ^— ' 


^e- v_/ 






f- 


1 








Z J 


h ^ 


^v. i 






w < 


Jh fH 


X co 






2 Q CO 


03 -H 


^ -H 








T3 C 


03 T3 






< < cu 


c x o 


•H 


^-t 




S 15 


O 03 -H 


4_> T3 


03 




o u +-> 


fi C 


CO 




H Q 


CD Cu o3 


CD o3 


O 






CO CO t>0 


E- rH 


a* 






CD 


C 






Z 

o 


i +-> bo 


O 4J 






T3 i— i i c a) 


•H C 






l-H 


C O co <D +-> 


+-> CD 






tu f- E- 


03 O X E Cu, 


O E 






o u u 

3 CU 


co +-> CD 
T3 "O o3 co X 


<D P 

r-l 03 






TYPE 

CONSTRl 

PROJ] 


CD CD CS CD 4-» 


i— ( O 






T3 T3 O fn ■• -H 


O U 


E 




03 C -H +-> 4-> i-l 


O +J 


CD 




fH OS •*-> ^ C -H 




*-> 




ojao £ « u 
Cu X CD CD >-h o3 
D dh +j Cu^ 


S TJ 


CO 




CD C 
Z 03 


X 

co 




Q >- 










W hr> 




O 






CO »— l Q 


CO 






o u o 


" 






cu < 2 


rH 


csi 






O O- N — ' 








OS < 










o* u 






1 














*•*. Q 










O X CS3 




CD 

C 

o 
z 






ZhS 


LO 






»— « i— « v — ^ 


CNJ 






CO < S 








H-l D- O 










X < J 










UJ CJ> uu 










z 


Q\ 








O 


r- 


c 


i-H 




t— i 


C7> 


2 






CJ PL3 


i— 1 


o 


Cl, 




2 < 


X 


CD 


CD 




Q 


+-> 


O 


CO 




OS 


3 (N 


c 






O E- 


O 


•H O 


c 




2 S 


E Cu 


> ^ 


•h a^ 




.—i CD 


O 3 


oo r^ 




S OS 


03 4-» 


^H f-t 


cd ai 




o < 


Urn CO 


o. H 


aa ^ 




H H 


2-24 









CO 

H 
< 

co 



13 00 

0) t->- 

+J 05 

MOH 

C 0) 
•H Ph H 

P X 

,Q 

O 

S C P 

o o 

•H O 
P 

o e 

03 -h 



o 
H 



c 

rt p 

rH <D 

Ph rH 

x e 

p o 

• H O 



O rH 

4-1 <4-i 
+J 

rH 3 

O 
Ph 

fn 

P O 
CO 4-1 



4-1 4-> 

O O 

< 
P 
C to 

a> 



i 

P 
O 



E 
13 

c 


e 



P 

O 03 

P CO 

U C 

O o3 

• H 

h a 



I 

C 

s 

CD 
P 
3= iH 

0) 03 
G 

tO 
tJO-H 

C X 
■H H 
P 

•H 

X • 

•H to 

X M 

O rH 

U aJ 
Ph4h 



i 

■H 
+J 

F-i 

13 03 
CD Ph 

P 

CD U 
-H 



I 

c 
o 
u 

•H 

> 



to 

•H 

to 

rH O 



CD CD 



I— 1 


i— 1 


o 


4^ 


o 


-s 


M 


o 


to 


3 


Ph 






Ph 




tfl 


to 




C 


•H 


ai 


x 


O 


CO 


3 


bO 


•H 


cd 




3 


P 


X 


CD 


O 


o3 




> 


rH 


Ph 


CD 


•H 


X 


•H 


X 


*J 


+J 


a 


P 



o 

c 
p 

o3 tl) 
X > 
P 03 

toO^ 

•H -H rH 



to 



<D 
rH +J 
rH 03 

•H P 

3 to 



o 

03 



O 

TO 



rH 03 

o3 O 

P -H 

C 13 



CD 

E 



S4H 



C 4-1 

o o 

H 

Ph P P 

e o3 o 

•H +-> 03 

e 

CD CD CD 

to S H 

f-i CD -H 

CD rH P 
iS r^ °* 

13 E CD 

03 rH fn 



CD 
•P 

03 

rH ' 

03 
Ph 
CD X 

CO P 



• -H 

CD O 

rH 03 

3 4-1 
P 

03 CD 

r-t &0 

to 03 

•H P 

W) Ph 

CD CD 

— I tO 



H 

CD 
13 

C 
3 

O 
to 

<-< c 

o3 O 

•H 

r-N P 
rH 03 

o3 too 
C -h 
O P 

■H CO 

CO CD 
CD > 

^ e 



O C 

P -H 

rH 

03 XX) 

P 13 CD 

C 3 P 

P CD 

E CO rH 

c a, 
o P 
o 



rH 

•H 

> 



o • 

03 O 60 

Ph 1^ 

CD CTi 



B H ,DH 



p 

c -H 

CD 13 
E C 

Ph Cti 

o 
p 
3: 

o 

p 



CD 
> 

CD 
13 


> 



P 
3 
O 
■H X 
to too 

e 3 

CD O 
P rH 
X X 

W P 



to I 

P rH CD 

C rH H 

CD CD CD 

E 2 > 

CD CD 

too X to 

C rH 

h & * 

m 3 O 

o3 to P 

13 a h 

CD -H o 

rH rH X 

CD JD too 

p 3 3 

P Ph O 

crj h 

O 4-1 X 

to O P 



X 

I M 

rH 03 

•H 13 

o3 c 
> O 
o3 CJ 
CD 
CD to 

^4H 
O 
P 
•H X 

E P 

•H -H 



o 

•H 
P 

crj 

H 

P 13 

rH CD 



c 

C 03 

•H > 
\T3 

p < 
e 

CD 

E • 
p to 

03 CD 



to O 

•h in: 


P H CJ 

Ph = 



p 

•H 

= 3: 



CD 
toO 
03 


to 



rH 


> 

o 




E 



o 



XX 

rH 03 




rH 
P 



P 

■H 

to 



03 P 

03 -H 

13 to 

rH 

P P 13 

03 ■ 

<D O U 

P -H O 

to 13 > 

03 p ,03 

2 -H 4h 



rH 

O - 

P 4-H 

03 r—f 

N „C 

•H rH 03 

rH JD rH 

03 o3 -H 

C P CO 

O to 

•H C 13 
too h 

03 to 

<X CQ -H 



H 

U E- 
tU CO 

•"5 O 

o o 

Cu 



o 
o 
o 

o 

o 

CN1 

•ee- 



O 

o 

CN 

os 

W 




X to 




H -H 




03 13 




13 





C rH 


too 


O 03 


U 


C 


03 


o3 


X 


CO o 


o 


p 




c 









C E 




O P 




•H 03 




P 




o u 




p 




1— I 




rH 13 




o c 




U 03 





03 
to 
O 

\ Ph 

X to 

U -H 

o3 13 

■H 

P 13 

h C 

03 

H rH 



a, 
O 

w 
a. 



z 

o 

rH 

H H 
U U 

OS >-3 

H O 
CO OS 

z a. 

o 
u 



c 
o 

•H 

p 
o 




p 
c 

E 
p 

03 



c 
o 

03 
tsl 

•H 



I 

Ph 

too 
to o3 
P 



to o3 03 

O rH E C CQ 

U P o 

p 

2 T3 to too +J 

C X -H 

2 03 to m 3: 







-1/ 



X X 
03 
P 

to 



X 

•H 

to 



Ph X 
P 

to -H 



to 

o 

Oh 



P O 
03 03 

r-i 4H 



Q 

tu 

CO 

o 

O- 
O 
OS 

a. 



E- r- 

CJ o 

< s 

Oh ^~- 

< 

CJ 



00 



O CM 



O 

2 



\ Q 
>- cj 
H 2 



H 

CO 



o- 

X < 




c 
o 




c 
o 
z 



z 

o 

1— i 
CJ UJ 

H 
< 



OS 

o 



o 



OS 



p 

3 
O 
CO 

X 

O H 

•H O 

3: E 

13 03 

C 00 

03 crj 

CO CO 



C7> 
CTi 



CN 

Ph 

P 
CO 





CTi 




h« 




CT> 




rH 


X 




p 


• • 


3 


fN 


O 




B 


Ph 


rH 





03 


P 


X 


CO 



2-25 



c 
o 
o 



to 

CN 



w 

< 



co 

H 
< 

E- 
CO 



E- 

C_> H 

CU CO 

►"3 O 

o u 

OS 

a. 



H 

Z J 

w < 

S Q CO 

H ZO 

< < D- 
CO 













03 


c 




CO 




. 


















CD 


o3 


>h 


CM 




X 




T3 














p 


rH 


o 




P 


03 




CD 












-o 


cU 


&.<+- 


a> 


a> 


oa 




H-> to 












CD •> 








4-> 


+-> 




<i> 


O 03 








5 




to X 


CD 


00 

o 

CN1 


C 


os 


03 


to 


t > 


CD 




"3 




o 


£ 


O +J 


o 


>H 




S 


•H 


•H 


•i-> O 









1— < 


O 


P,.H 


•H 


<D 


Ch 




5 


> 


O U 




+-> 




<+H 


?H 


O --H 


> 


o 


o 


C_3 


CD 


£-, 






O 


T3 




4h 


?-l -H 


rH 


1> 


c 




CO 


rJ 


0) 




cu 


C 


I— 1 




Ph O 


CD 


£ 


o 


x 






to 




Ph 


cd 


o3 


to 


03 


to 


o 


+j 


<+H 


c 









X 


fc^ 


•H 


C 


X*w 








3 


O 


•H 


J-. 


> CM 




o 


c 


•P 


o 


i— 1 


W) 


on 


to 


O 






(1) 


03 






O 


c 


•H 


r-i Q 


c 


CNl 


a> 


to 


CD 


X 


^ 


rC ^H 




to 


u 


03 


+-> 


03 CJ 


•H 


CD 


> 




(O 


+-> 


tl> 


o 




•H 


CD 


4-> 


O 


•H S 


4-> 


rH 


to 


3 


•H 


to 


to 


— 




rH 


10 


3 


■P 


•H 


OS 


<D 


03 


03 


t— i 




o3 2 


■=■ 


CO 




.O 


T3 


•H O 


fc= 


to 


CD 


o 


03 


on 


CD O 


n 


t— 1 


o 


3 


CD 


c • 


•H 


r> 


CD 


P 


CD 


3 


o 


rH i-> 


n 


CU 


•p 


W 


!h 


•H ^ 


rH 


+-> 


>H 


03 


rO 


a* 


CN 


03 Mh 


in 



a 



cu 
O 



z 

o 

H 

E- E- 

ra cu 

CU Qi r-j 

O.HO 
>* CO oi 

t- z o- 
o 

u 



Q 
CU 
CO 

o 
o 

OS 

CU 



t-H Q 
U O 

< s 

o, v — 
< 



CJ >- CJ3 
Z E- S 



E- 
C0 



C_) 

< 3: 

Q- O 

X < ~J 

CU C_) tu 



z 

o 

H 
< 
Q 



OS 
O 



O 

E- 



OS 



c 
o 
o 



3 

o 
s 
u 

03 
>- 



2-26 



x 

"3 
3 
4-> 
to 

rH 
CD 

-a 



c 

CD 

to 

<D 

rH 
Ch 

CD 

rH 

3 
DC 



rH 
O 



to 
o 

u 

* 




GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS 

DEPARTMENT 
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 



^/%Pi_ V_, 



/Ut 






.ANNlN^ AftO £CGnG«WC DEv£LG; > wlEfoY COMfcifSSiGft 

. ;iC"i COtifcT rtOUSE. UAftNSTAtJL.t . MAii*«CHUtnXfi O^doO 




ERRATA -- 208 FINAL PLAN 


















Please make the following corrections in your copy 



page 2-27 paragraph 3. lines 6-10 should read: 



As shown in the table, it would cost the average non-user 
$24 per year in taxes to amortize 100 p o of the collection 
system, for a total cost of $34 per year, while it would 
cost each user $293 per year in betterments for a total 



annual cost of $376. 



Costs 

As shown in Table 2.4 centralized sewering is very costly. While 
substantial support is available through state and federal funding, 
the local share is sizeable. The local share for the Falmouth facil- 
ity plan, for example, is estimated at $3 million out of the total 
cost of $14 million. 

On Cape Cod existing and proposed sewers have resulted in estimated 
costs to the user of $100 to $400 per year, plus an initial hookup 
of $500 to $1500. The costliness of sewers has been of concern to 
the EPA for several years, since a national survey revealed that sew- 
ering was costing $200 to $400 per year per user. EPA considers that 
the maximum bearable sewer cost is 1% of the user's median income 
($65-$130/year nationally), EPA has also set strict policies that 
sewers must be demonstrated to be necessary and cost-effective in 
order to receive funding. 

The Falmouth plan provides a good example of how costs break down per 
household. As can be seen in Table 2.4, the total annual cost to 
the user depends heavily on the method of apportioning the cost of 
the collection system between betterment assessments and the general 
tax rate. The town share of the treatment plant and transmission 
system is carried on the general tax rate. As shown in the table, it 
would cost the average non-user $16 per year to amortize 100% of the 
collection system, for a total cost of $34 per year, while it would 
cost each user $277 per year, for a total annual cost of $376. 

Towns should seriously consider the public benefit derived from the 
abatement of odors, water pollution and public health nuisances, when 
fixing apportionments of betterment assessments. The 208 service areas 
have been selected to represent the minimum investment in centralized 
sewers in order to avoid excessive costs. These will be further re- 
fined by 201 studies. Since limited sewering is recommended in this 
plan, substantial relief to the user could be provided through a 
modest investment on the part of the general taxpayers. It is hoped 
that towns, the state and EPA will make a serious commitment to funding 
the needed systems at reasonable costs to the user in order to achieve 
the regional and national water quality goals. 



2-27 



cm 

CU 

< 



t/5 

e 

o 

*J 
(/) 
X 
to 

C 

o 

•H 
+-> 

o 

CD 



o 
o 

5h 

o 

+J 

c 

e 

to 

CD 
(/) 
t/1 
o3 

4-> 

c 
cd 

E 

u 

CD 

+J 

<L> 

0) 
> 

•H 
+J 

o3 

e 

f-l 




oo] 
c 

•H 

o 

(A 
■*-» 
t/> 

O 

u 

G CD 
—1 O 

O 

03 

C 



3m 

CU 

co cd 



o 



c 

H 

03 

< 

c 

o3 

c 
o 

•H 

4-1 

5h 



Q- 
X 

E- 

O 

H 
CO CD 

o a 
u o 

aS T3 

cu c 

3: aj 

cu 

CO f-H 

aS 

< -H 

=> Cwj 
2; u 



* 

3 



a 
cu 

OS 

cu 

cu 

CO 

cu 
a 
»— i 

CO 
O 



< 

CU 
OS 

< 

a 

cu 

OS 

cu 
cu 

CO 



X 



cd 


aj 


4-> 


+-> 


3 


71 


G 


c 


o 


r- 


rj 


u 




< 






1 
5^ 






CD 


4-> 




+J 


c 




4-> 


CD 




<D 


£ 




CO 





CD 


nj 


00 


IA 


aj 


O 


+J 


Cu 


Cm 


</) 


CD 


■H 


CO 


a 


X 




+-> 




u 




CD 


X 


Oh 


aj 


O 


H 


5m 




0- 





aj 


aj +-> 


4*> 


3 V) 


O 


c o 


H 


C C_3 




< 




1 

5-i 




CD 4-> 




+-> C 




4_> CD 




CD E 




CQ 




CD 




U oo 




CD Ji 




to aj 




X X! 




U 




X 




+-> 




Jh 




CD X 




a, as 




O H 




M 




0- 



CD 

tO aj 

cti OS 



X o o 

O -H 



CD 03 



fee- aj 

2 5m >"H 



<d aj 

cu > 



<4-l 

o 

c 
o 

H 



y 



CD 
•H 
i—l 

Cm •*-> 
Cm 03 

< os 



o o 



E X 
CU CD 03 
■P H 
to 
X o 



a- cj co 4-> 



tO 



CN 



00 



CM 



vO 



oo 



en 



to 

CM 



"3- 



vO 

to 



to 

CM 



LO 



LO 



LO 



CN 



vO 



00 



o 
o 

to 



o 

o 

CM 



LO 

a-. 



o 
o 



o 

LO 



03 
<D 

03 

a 
o 

CD 
7) 



O 

o 
o 

c 

fee- 

o 

C — " 

•r-t 03 
X > 
4-> 

•H *J 

S CD 

-a S-. 

t— t 03 

O E 

X 

CD CD 

3 g 

O CD 

•H 

•— < 10 
03 CD 



03 
CD 

■*-> 
O 

o 
o 
o 

CM 



3 
CO O 
03 ^3 
+-> 03 
C 

O CD 

Jh to 

IH 3 

Ch CD 

1 +-> 

O OS 

oo 5 



Cm 



CN1 tO 



03 
O 

OS 

CD 
f-i 
CD 
2 
CD 
(A 

CD 

•O 

•H 
(A 

•*-> 

3 
O 

^-< 
O 

X 

a 
t/> 

3 
O 



03 
CD 





> 

CD 
CD 



3 

Cm 

CD 
03 



C 

LO 

CM 



03 
CD 

•H 

a. 



Cm 

CD ■— i 

1/1 LO W 
CM 

<4m -&0- a) 

o — 

CD 5-i 

oo a 

03 O 

— i X 

H U f 

03 C 

00 OO CD 

C E 
o 
o 
o 



c 
o 



C 03 

E O 

3 S-i 

Cm *-• 



rsi to 



oo 
a. 



3 
O 
E 

i—i 
o) 
cu 

5h 
O 

C 
03 
i—i 

Cm 

X 





CD 




03 




4h 




CD 




t+i O 




o ^ 




CD 




♦J S 




t*M 




03 u? 




5m 




"O 5m 




O 




X tr. 




5m it. 




OS CD 




C 5m 




.^ Q 


CD 


E 


a 


•H • 


5m 

3 


i— t C< 

a E 


O 


5m 03 


CO 


O, U 



2-28 



FEDERAL ACTION 

1. The EPA Construction Grants Division should support implementation 
of the 208 plan by adopting the funding policies set forth in this 
section. The EPA should monitor the implementation of 201 funds by 
DWPC to assure consistency. 

2. The EPA Water Quality Branch should continue to utilize technical 
assistance of USGS in reviewing the impacts of proposed sewer facilities 
on the groundwater resources of Cape Cod. 

STATE ACTION 

1. The Division of Water Resources should recommend to the Governor 
designation of all Cape Cod towns and the Water Pollution Abatement 
Districts as recommended in Table 2.3 as wastewater management agencies, 
eligible to receive 201 grants for construction of treatment work. 

2. The Division of Water Pollution Control should adopt and implement 
on Cape Cod the criteria for 201 studies set forth in this section. 

3. The DWPC should give funding priority to the projects listed in 
Table 2.3 when 201 applications are made by the towns and districts. 

4. The Director of DWPC should recommend to the Water Resources Com- 
mission the formation of Water Pollution Abatement Districts in Buzzards 
Bay and South Sagamore for the purpose of implementing the plan recom- 
mendations. 

5. The Division of Water Pollution Control should utilize 201 

funds to provide the maximum incentive to towns to abate pollution, to 
protect water quality and to assure consistency with 208 adopting the 
following funding policies for the Cape Cod region: 

a. Construction of sewers should be limited to those areas for 
which there is no other cost-effective solution to existing public 
health or water quality problems. 

b. Construction projects must be determined to be consistent with 
the 208 plan through the regional A-95 review process. 

c. No construction grant shall be awarded for a project that does 
not include implementation of an abatement alternative for all 
Category 1 areas and septage treatment facilities for the entire 
town. 

d. Sewer construction in areas not recommended for sewering in a 
208-approved 201 facility plan shall not receive funding within the 
planning period of that facility plan unless the applicant can 
demonstrate a good faith effort to implement the recommended non- 
sewered alternatives to prevent development of sewer needs. 

e. These policies shall be applied to all projects which have not 
reached Step 3 at the time of certification of the 208 plan. 



2-29 



6. The DWPC should assume responsibility for coordination with 208 
by notifying the CCPEDC, as the designated areawide planning agency, of 
all meetings dealing with 201 applications from Cape Cod towns and by send- 
ing copies of all 201-related correspondence, to the 208 agency. The DWPC 
should require all applicants to forward copies of all correspondence, 
consultant contracts, and draft and final reports to the 208 agency. 
Draft priority lists should be sent to the 208 agency for review prior 
to finalization. 



7. DEQE should implement 208 recommendations and coordinate with the 
208 agency in permitting of subsurface disposal systems and septage 
treatment facilities. DEQE should notify the 208 agency of all appli- 
cations for subsurface disposal permits for systems over 15,000 gal/ 
day and all proposed septage facilities. 

REGIONAL ACTION 

1. The CCPEDC, as the designated 208 areawide wastewater management 
planning agency, should provide technical assistance to the towns in 
making application for 201 funds, and should serve as a regional coor- 
dinator of 201 planning efforts to assure consistency with the 208 plan. 

2. The CCPEDC should assign to the Cape Cod Water Resources Advisory 
Council the responsibility of working with the water quality staff to 
develop a determination of consistency between completed 201 facility 
plans and the 208 plan and to make annual recommendations to the DWPC 
on facility needs for inclusion in the DWPC Construction Grants Program 
Priority List. 

LOCAL ACTION 

1. The seven towns and regions listed in Table 2.3 should complete 
201 facilities plans and construct the recommended facilities within 
the first five years of implementation. 

2. The town of Bourne should form water pollution abatement districts 
in Buzzards Bay and South Sagamore. 

3. Towns should seek assistance of the 208 planning agency in making 
application for 201 funds, and should maintain close contact with the 
208 agency throughout the planning process. 

4. In constructing a sewer system, towns should coordinate with 
Mass. DPW road construction projects. 

5. Town water quality advisory committees should fully participate in 
the 201 planning process to assure a coordinated approach and the develop- 
ment of a publically acceptable facility plan. They should forward the 
completed facility plan to the Regional Water Resources Advisory Council 
with comments to be taken into consideration by the council in determining 
its consistency with the 208 plan. 

6. Town water quality advisory committees should meet annually to review 
208 sewer service areas and recommend revisions to the Regional Water 
Resources Advisory Council. 

2-30 



Neighborhood Solutions & Septage Facilities 

Towns with substantial Category 2 problem areas should be encouraged to 
apply for Step 1 funds to evaluate decentralized alternatives including 
on-site system rehabilitation, neighborhood treatment systems and sep- 
tage treatment facilities. All of these facilities, exclusive of 
lateral collection systems, are grant eligible under the Clean Waters 
Act of 19 77,- provided that homeowners are year-round residents. 

Facility planning for decentralized solutions is a relatively new concept. 
In general, the Step 1 for a decentralized approach will represent a 
larger portion of the total project cost than for a major sewer construc- 
tion project. Recent estimates have indicated costs between $50,000- 
$100,000. Table 2.5 indicates towns with large Category 2 problem 
areas warranting a 201 facilities plan for decentralized solutions. 

Scope of Facility Plan 

The 208 plan should be used as a basis for the Step 1 study, with the 
designated problem areas receiving the most attention. The problem area 
screening process described in the draft plan and summarized in Table 2.6 
should be employed, and further information should be obtained for the 
problem areas including the following: 

--site specific septage, soils and water quality information for 
problem areas as described for sewer facility needs survey. 

--determination whether on-site system rehabilitation and upgrading 
to septic tanks meeting Title 5 soil and water table requirements 
can abate the failures, including possible use of communal septic 
tank systems. 

--comparison of sewered solutions for part or all of Category 2 
problem areas, including small -diameter collection systems, and 
rehabilitation of individual and communal septic tank systems. 

--general recommendations for rehabilitation of on-site systems in 
non-problem areas including recommended on-site system management 
and non-structural controls. 

--comparison of septage treatment design capacities necessary for 
different pump schedules and recommendation of maintenance 
pumping schedule for chosen alternative. 

--design of septage treatment facility with capacity to handle 
local and regional flows. (See Table 2.7) 

Septage Flow Projections 

Septage flows should be projected on the basis of on-site system rehabil- 
itation and a maintenance pumping program. While present flows from 
failures must be taken into consideration, straight-line projection of 
present flows is not acceptable. 

Any method of projecting septage flows will be complex since a number 
of factors must be taken into consideration. 

2-31 





O 




X ' 




13 




H 




3 




O 




X 




CO 




00 /-^ 




r^ 








OJ 00 




^H O 




Oh »H 




P 




X-H 




p I-H 




•H -H 




H O 




•H 0j 




O 4h 




Rj 




4h CD 




CO 




1—1 aj 




O P 




CM Oh 




CD 




X to 




O 




•H O 




X P 




2 




c 




c 




•H -H 




P 




00 -H 




C 13 




2 13 




O a3 




P 




C 




• •> -H 




00 




aj 00 




e 


CO 


f-H 


Q 


< p 


UJ 


00 


UJ 


6 X 


2: 


00 




r— I 


CO 


X 13 


z 


O O 





U M 


t— 1 


a. -h 


H 


1— 1 


X 


Csl 03 


J 


u 





X P 


CO 


fn C 







Q 


GO O 


O 


<U <u 


O 


P 13 




03 
U CO 


O 


c 


CQ 


fn -H 


^— 


O P 


13 


•f~ » 03 


I-H 


03 3 


' T 1 


22 h 


z 


03 




X > 




+j (D 


LO 


•H 


• 


5 13 


(N 


<D 




00 Jh 


W 


C 03 


-J 


2 Oh 


CQ 


O 


< 


E- Jh 


H 


^ Oh 



CO 

z 



o 



o 

-J 

Uh 



uj 
< 



UJ 
-J 
CQ 
O 

a. 



o 

E- 








13 




p 











•V 


fn 




fH 


00 










03 


> 




•H 





O 




fH 


U 


U 




Oh 


rt 


c 




X 










5h 


00 







03 





X 




00 


X 






00 


p 












> 




O 


fn 


aj 


• 





O 


X 


c 


c 


4-1 




aj 






X 


t— i 


00 


00 


aj 


Oh 


•H 


P 


e 






C 




?H 


X 


aj 


X 





13 


U 





2 





G0,£ 





P 




P 


00 


00 


c 











X 


1—1 


00 


•H 


co 


aj 


U 


P 


3 


C 


O 


O 


O 


• H 








X 


CO 


c 


fH 


P 


•H 




p 




fH 


1— 1 


00 


c 


O 


t— 1 


C 







3 


O 


> 


X 


a, 


O 





X 



o o 

o c 

CO Csl 

O — 1 

\0 LO 





0) 




^ 




aj 




X 




P 









3 




cr 




03 




3 





a* 


1—1 





1— 1 


3= 


•H 




> 


4h 


CO 


O 


• H 




aj 


• 


U 


O 


U 


z 



vO 




1— ( 

X 
aj 
P 
00 

C 

u 

aj 
CQ 











00 






X 




-a 


C 






00 




<D 


aj 






3 




> 


1-4 






O 


• *\ 


f-H 


Oh 






fn 


00 











X 


•p 


00 


O 




c 


P 


u 




C 




•H 




•H 


CD 











fH 


X 


00 




00 


fn 


•(-> 




aj 




e 


O 


00 


O 


X 


• 





£ 


•H 


+-> 




0'; 


rH 


aj 


T3 




C 


nl 


X 


CO 




<D 


2 


a 


O 


aj 


+J 


CO 


O 


fH 


5-1 


CO 


C 


aj 


E- 


C^ 


Oh 




a> 


1— t 








X 


6 


1— 1 




<L> 





p 


<L> 


•H 


• 


in 


> 


3 


■*-» 


> 


c 


O 


1—1 


O 


aj 







X 


O 


co 


X 


CD 


•H 


+J 


00 




aj 


E 


•♦-» 






-0 




O 


fH 


O 


c 


c 


3 


aj 





P 


aj 










4h 






•H 


CQ 


l-H 




00 


X +■ 




aj 


— 1 


U 


aj 


3 


C 


O 


O 





CQ 


•— i 


•H 


O 


rs 


4h 




1—1 




i—l 







00 


O 


00 




fH 


U 


-a 


Oh 


e 


X 





Oh 


h 




a> 


CO 


fj 




aj 


fH 


rH 


3 


c 


C 


N 


<v 


X 








2 


Nl 


■*-» 


O 


fH 




O 


3 


OJ 


5h 


X 





E- 


CQ 


5 


Q- 


+-» 


+j 



o 
c 

(N 



O 

c 



c 
o 
to 

to 



<u 








00 








3 • 








O 13 


4h 






x a. 









fH 








O co 


*J 






■P c 


00 






aj -h 


aj 






S 13 


<D 






C 


X 






6 aj 


■P 






O X 


fH 






fH 


O 






4h 00 


c 




X 


2 




• 





00 


00 


13 


aj 


CM r—t 


r-j 


cc 


CD 


fH 






CQ 


0) aj 


Qi 


13 




4-> CQ 


P 


c 


P 


Q- 


O- 





C 







a. 


<D 


CO +-> 


GO 




£ 


c 


C 


X 


3 


• 


O 


aj 


c 


r-t T3 


1— 1 


i-H 





< Q- 


< 


PL 


s 



CN 

i—t 

00 



to 





CD 




CO 


CD 


aj 


C 


i-H 


fH 


^H 


3 


•H 


O 


> 


CQ 


* — ' 



aj 






CD 


X 




fH 


X 




aj 


p 




00 


c 




•H 







X 


00 




P 


CD 

fH 




r- 


Oh 




•H 


P 




c 


03 











•H 


£ 




P 


CD 




as 


-H 


• 


1— i 


X 


C 


3 





O 


Oh 


fH 


•H 


O 


O, 


P 


Oh 




aj 




CO 


P 


^H 


r^ 


•H 


aj 


•H 


— 


C 


^H 


•H 


O 


13 


X 


00 


C 


rt 


aj 


aj 


^" 


CD 


X 





00 


00 


- 


X 


■H 


P 


:—) 




c 


X 


C 


— 1 


CO 


s 


1 


•H 





c 


E 


E-i 






o 
o 



13 
03 

X 

p 



o 

u 

fH 

o 
o 

C+H 

o 

X 
P 
3 
O 
CO 



00 

•H 

c 
c 
o 
a 



CD 



T3 




C 




aj 




X 




O 




P 




r^ 








5 


• 


•H 


C 


P 


O 


c 


•H 


CD 


P 


P 


aj 


C 


P 


■H 


•H 




i-H 


13 


•H 


CD 


X 


P 


aj 


03 


X 


O 


O 


•H 


fH 


13 




j^ 


X 


•H 


X 


[/] 


00 


aj 


£ 


r- 







r- 1 


^ 


X 


s 








fH 


E- 


Oh 



000 
000 
o r- 00 

*V *s #V 

to — t r- 

CO N f 



O X 

• ~< P u 

S 5h •- 

fH O 2 

aj Ch '- 

X X cd 

X -H 

P 2 -e-> 

3 f-H yi 

C OJ CD 

CO X S 



to o 



X 
CD 

•H 
fH 

x 



en 




Rj 




2 




P 




U 









■n 


• 


O 


CO 


fH 


t^ 


0:0 




-H 


00 




•H 


•i 


X 


Sh 


P 







X 


fH 


£ 


O 





4h 


P 




Oh 


^- 





fH 


CO 


O 




2 


c 




•H 


cw 




O 


13 










P 


Oh P 


O 


■H 


O 


e= 


00 


X 




3 


< 


00 



o 
o 

c 

LO 




p 
c 

u 

00 

c 

aj 


I-H 
fH 
C 



CN1 



00 

c 
aj 

— < 

o 



CO 




c 




•H 




p 




aj 




a 




•H 




13 




^ , 




— 




•H 




00 


C 


P 





C 


^ 





aj 


g 


p 


E 




O 





O 


X 


O 


i-H 


C 


i-H 




•H 





2 


13 




03 


C 


£ 


O 




•H 


00 


P 


aj 


O 


X 


aj 


C 


P 


2 


aj 


O 


X 


— 


2 



o 
o 

LO 

to 



fH 


P 

c 

u 














l—t 
4h 







2-32 



Csl 



CO 

< 



h 

P 

X 

u 

p 

oj 



p 

13 
0) 

a; 
to 



p 
o 

•H 

P 
CTJ 

p 
a3 

-H 

p- 
x 

CD 

p 
o 



CO 
< 

pj 
a: 
< 



w 
x 
ca 
o 
a; 

Cu 
2 



co 
a 
o 

P 

«£. 

H 
2 

t^ 

PJ 

< 



OS 
UJ 

< 

H 
CO 

< 



2 



UJ 
OS 
CJ 

CO 



E- 



X 

P 

aj 
P 
O 

I* 
<D 

H 



CD 
i— i 
,Q 
■H 

10 

rt 

0) 

<P 



H3M3S AIIAVdD 
H3I3WVIQ '31 

H3M3S wnnovA 

H3M3S 

3df}SS3Hd 

H3M3S AIIAVdO 

H3I3WVIG 'WS 

NoiiDnasn 

MOld 

HNV1 ONiaiOH 

N0IIVD3dD3S 
3ISVM 

a noon - IS 





F— ( 

•H 
CO 

aj 




0) 

p 


13 

•H 

co 

5 
a 

13 

o 

X 
p 

cu 



SVS - IS 
T IS 



I 

lid 



2 






o 




X 


1 — 1 




P 


H 




•H 


f— i 




r— 1 


a 




•H 


2 




X 


O 




TO 


CJ 






E 


IS 




P 


CU 




CD 


J 




a- 


CD 






O 




2 


as 




o 


O- 




j 



co 



o 

CO 





to 




(/> 


LO 


Xi 




aJ 


CD 


X 


-H 


CD 


P 


P 


•H 




H 


P 




O 


X 


<p 


X) 




T3 


§ 


CD 


e 


4-) 


•H 


•H 


X 


X 


aj 


•H 


6 


r- 




o 


T3 


P, 


CD 


Ph 


13 




P 


to 


CD 


E 


S 


CD 


6 


P 


O 


VI 


o 


X 





CO 


P 


5 


00 


CD 


o 


2 


CM 



+ + 



+ + 



+ + 



+ + 



+ + 



1 I 



I I 



I I 



p 

•H 

e 

o 
to 



CD 
P 
O 

e 

P 
CD 

a- 



• H 

e 

o 

MO 



p c 

a3 03 

X X 

P 4-> 



CD 
!h 
O 
£ 

P 
CD 

a. 



i 

u 

CD 



o 

p 

X 
p 
ex, 

CD 
13 

O 



x 
co 



i/i 

















1 


CD 




















CO 


















CD 


P 














co 




t— i 


CD 








<D 




X 


E 




X 


> 


c 






> 




P 


CD 




03 


13 


o 






•H 




•H 


P 




CD 


03 


•H 




<* 


in 




l-H 


CO 




E 




p 




co 


C 




o3 


X 




p 


X 


u 


u") 


X 


CD 




3 


CO 




CD 


P 


CD 




03 


P-. 


-H 


cr 






P- 


CD 


i— i 


CD 


X 


X 


03 




p 






> 


r— 1 


*H 


CD 


CD 


CJ 


fn 


O 




X 




O 


P 


p 




•H 


CD 


r— i 




P 


>^ 


o 


■H 




X 


fJ 


P 






CD 


i— ( 


CD 


H 


P 


^H 


■H 


03 


rj 




^ 


X 


X > 




o 


CD 


fH 


2 


o 






ffl 


P -H 


X 


cw 


> 


CJ 








CO 


X 


•H 4- 


X 




•H 




iw 


lp 




1—1 


o 


> U 




£ 


P 


CO 


•H 


o 




•H 


p 


03 


XI 


3 


■H 


•H 








O 


Ph 


P <4-l 


CD 


e 


X 


CO 


CO 


X 




CO 




txo *P 


P 


•H 


•H 


X 


r-i P 


p 






p 


o 


•H 


*— 


X 


—4 


-1 P 


•H 




'■P 


CJ 


• - 1 


X 


• H 


o 


03 


CD CD 


1— 1 




•H 


03 


13 P 


•H 


s 


p 


C 


2 co 


•H 






Ph 


CD co 


X 




p- 


03 


CD 


X 


co 


CD 


£ 


P O 


o 


T3 






CD P 


•H 


i— i 


I— ( 


•H 


aj cj 


P 


CD 


CO 


CD 


P P. 


CO 


H 


•H 




CJ 


Ph 


-a 


(H 


> 


aJ 


03 


o 


X 


X 


•H P 




*-• 


CD 


•H 


> CD 


CD 


CO 


•H 


p 


-a co 


tO 


CD 


S 


•P 


•H P 


cw 




CO 


•H 


c o 


s 


6 


CD 


o 


P Oi 




c 


03 


i—l 


■H E 


CD 


e 


CO 


.^ 


Ph 


i— i 


o 


.<!> 


03 




+-> 


O 




CH 


CO 


OS 




Cp 


3 


OO X 


to 


o 


X 


CH 


-O E 


CJ 


co 




cr 


P —I 


X 


CD 


■p 


CD 


P CD 


•H 


t3 


P 




•H X3 


(/] 


P 


•H 




o3 -h 


£ 


£2 


•H 


p 


P 03 






> 


P 


«J X 


X 


CD 


C 


CD 


CD X 


2 


CO 


03 


CO 


co O 


CJ 


Ph 


1 


p 


2 O 


CD 


O 


U 


o 


•H *H 


CD 





H 


03 


CD P 


2 


CM 


CD 


CJ 


a ahT) 


CO 


2 


co a, 



o 




a 




o 




o 






co 




to 


X 


r-H 


^ , 


i — i 


-H 


•i— i 


T— ■, 


•H 


pH 


o 


1— 1 


o 


03 


CO 


03 


CO 


P 




P 




3 


CD 


3 


CD 


P 


— i 


P 


!-H 


03 


X 


03 


X 


P 


03 


P 


03 




CD 




CD 


- 


E 


- 


E 


, ^- 


P 


to 


P 




CD 




CD 


P 


Ph 


C 


Ph 


03 




03 




X 


GO 


r- 


bO 


P 


P 


P 


C 




•H 




•H 


CO 


P 


CO 


P 


CO 


P 


to 


P 


CD 


3 


CD 


3 


-J 


CJ 


J 


CJ 



+ + + 



+ + + 



+ + + 



+ + + 



+ + + 



+ + + 



+ + + 



+ + + 












CD 




P 




P 




u 




O 




< 




E 










to 


— i 




P 










O 


P 


c 


P 







03 


U 


co 


< 


<■— 


< 







P 




P 


cm 




\<N 


CJ 




to 




< 


i 


CO 




1 


CM 


„\ N 


fH 


JP 





p 
o 
< 

p 

03 






p 
o 


p 
o 


p 
o 


P 

o 


o 


CO 












p 
o 

X 


00 

> 
< 


ao 
> 
< 


GO 
> 
< 


GO 

> 
< 


ao 

> 

< 



+ + 



+ + 



+ + 



+ + 



H H 



+ i 



+ i 



c c 



03 


CTJ 


X 


X 


P 


p 





to 


P 


CO 


o 






E- r- 



O O 

P P 

X X 

p p 

O. Ph 



a a 

i i 



UJ 

H 

CO 



2-33 



H 



U 

3 
U 
O 

6 

cd 
H 



CD 

1— I 

t/5 

cd 

CD 
<P 

c 



p 

c 
o 
o 



vO 

CM 

UJ 

CQ 
< 



CD 

M 

X 
•H 
C/5 

3 

CD 



<l) 
T3 

•H 

to 

c 
o 
o 

o 

X 

+-> 

CD 



o 



Q 

o 
u 



—3 
CQ 
O 
Q£ 

a, 





H 




3 c/> 




CD u 




> CD 




c 2 


T3 


O CD 


C 


O V) 


3 




o 


"O E 


S 


c 3 




03 3 


i 


u 




• 3 


E- 


e > 


oo 


3 




•H US' 


*\ 


TJ 


co : 


(/) 


< 


r-l 5h 


00 


t-H CD 


1 


3 2 


H 


E CD 


CT) 


CO If) 


-3 


T3 >^ 


rH 


rH +J 


3 


3 -h 


O 


o > 


(fl 


75 3 


•H 


•H 5-1 


Q 


Q 00 



to 
to 



oo 
o 



CD 

5-1 

•H 

cr 



a, CD 
o s-i 





* — » 


P 








X! 


to 


X 


i— 1 




j— t 


3 


l—l 


i— 1 


O 




■H 


2 


c 


X 




to 


3 




X 


CD 


X 


•\ 


O 


Oh 


P 


5H 


•H 


O 




3 


X 


— i 


U 


r— 1 


2 


00 


<u 


3 




P 


oo 


X 


i 3 


CD 


X 




CD 


5-H 


Oh 


X 


U 


5-1 


03 


X 


U 


(— 1 


r-i 


a 








u 








o 








0- 








o 








H 









>s, 

3 

O 
r-i 
CD 

E 

3 
3 

r-l 
O 



to 

c 
o 



10 P 

P 03 
3 P 
o to 

3<P 

o <p 

CD -H 
t3 — I 



X 

c 

o 
aL 

Q 

X 

3C 

i 

X 

o 
o 

CJ 



75 


If) 


rH 


U 





CD 


5 


3 


CD 


CD 


C/5 


If) 


X 


X 


+J 


■M 


•H 


•H 


> 


> 


03 


cd 


H 


U 


00 


00 


T3 


*3 


5-1 


fn 


3 


rt 


u 


o 


C/5 


tf) 



I I 



+ + 



+ + 



I I 



+ + 



I I 



I I 



o 


to 


o 


1— 1 


u 


•H 


"3 


o 


CD 


If) 


X 






CD 


2 


i— ( 


O 


X 


i— i 


cd 


i— i 


p 


cd 


C/5 


X 


c 


00 


X 



CD 
i—l 
X 

oS 

CD 
•(-> 

cd 










to 






E 






CD 




«+H 


l—l 




o 


o 




CD 


5-4 




to 


P-, 




3 






cd 


c 




o 


O 




CD 


•H 




X 


U 




to 


3 




^H 


^ 




CD 


+J 




2 


10 







c 




to 


o 

o 




X 




00 


■M 


US' 


< 


•H 




00 


> 


d 


1 


cd 


o 


H 


^ 


•H 


00 


GO 


4-> 

cd 


T3 


T3 


^H 


h 


h 


■*-» 


cd 


cd 


l—l 


o 


o 


•H 


(^ 


if) 


U^ 


•H 


•H 


c 


Q 


a 


•H 



+ I 



+ + 



+ + 



+ I 



+ + 



+ I 



+ I 



I I 



CD 


CD 


u 


U 


cd 


cd 


U-t 


tH 


u 


u 


3 


3 


to 


to 


s 


2 


o 


o 


^H 


— 1 


CD 


CD 


X 


X 



vO CNI 



c 


C 


cd 


cd 


X. 


X 


•p 


*J 


to 


to 


t/5 


10 


CD 


o 


—3 


—3 





cd 


CD 


2 


3 


O 


o 


T3 


r- 


1— 1 




cd * 


• r— 1 


TD 


•H C 


o cd 


C 


5h O 


+-> 


cd 


03 -r- 


CD O 




> ^ 


4-J 


00 


cd 


•\ 


c 


> 


T3 CD 


■r-l 


• 5- 


^i U 


If) 


if) CD 


C 


o • 


— H 10 


•H cd 


T3 -3 


•H 3 


tH -H 


CD 


O O 


f-i 


■*-> r-l 


CO O 


* cd 


as i— i 




X > 


x cc 


CD 5h 


>- 


+j »j 


i— i CD 


cd cd 


to 


X P 


i—i 


"3 3 


cd co 


—i S-i 


CD -H 


% 2 


cd o 


"3 




OO^H 


■H CD 


r- X 




> f-i 


CD +J 


« c 


59 * 


CU-H 


X CD 


2 


O > 


Oh t/1 


4h 


C -H 


CD 


C * 


CD M 


c o 


to 


h 


•H -H 


•* — 


+J CD 


-v. > 


to o 


X 


c o 


•H 


•s 


•H -3 


C t- 1 


u c 


E 


•H -H 


CD O 


c 


T3 


JO -H 


o o 


c c 


E 4J 


vO -H 


o c 


cd cd 


■*-> 


•H U 


-c ^ 


c cd 


«-> 


O CD 


cd > 


o o 


T3 


x ^ 


3 to 


•i -H 


•P CD 


5-i CD 


+-> to 


to 


+-> X 


•H C 


if) C 


to P 


cx o 


to O 


C 


o 


o a 


O 5h 


to 


r— 1 


O CD 


CD +-> 


5h 


-3 


-O cd 


trt CD 


2 C 


3 j= 


•H +-) 


O 3 


rH 4-> 


cd 


i— i 


o 


CD 2 


-i E 


c -p 


+■> 


cd cd 


•H CD 


cd -3 


4-> 


-a 


5h c 


X w 


E c 


cd 


5h X 


CD CD 


^ 


+-> to 


■P E 


5h -o 


c 


t/i E 


cd a 


3 "3 


X o 


CX X 


O CD 


if) o 


o 


O T3 


o 


O -—i 


c 


C ^H 


?H C- 


CD 3 


o 


O £ 


X O 


•H (/) 


X CD 


P E ■ 


•*-> -H 


2 


+-> 


X 


CD 


tM 2 3- 


^ ^> 


to 5h 


O O CD 


O «H 


i—i cd 


r-< U 


If) 


•H 


W "-1 C 


J3 to 


o *-> 


4-> cd o 


cd cd 


to to, 


5-. CD 


CD 


CD 


cd o 


^-1 fH 


c u 


3, +-> if) 


■H cd 


•r-l C 


— 


o 


o 


5-i -3 O 


c/> E 


-3 U 


CD O 3: 


CD 


i—i 


X *3 — 


X — • 


CD to 


PCX 


*-> X 


•H - 


o o u. 


•H O 


«+-! O 


g 


2 ^ 


Q 


3 E 5-i 


P,J5 


•-CO 


^ 


•J -3 


a 


= c 


cd u- 


to CD T3 


cd -H 


CD 


"3 5-1 r-l 


+J 


H U 


5h CD 


c 


o 


3 3 -H 


o o 


cd 


T3 O M-. 


^ -H -H 


to 


3 -H 


C *-» •!-> 


tM CD 


3 P rH 


o3 C-i aj 


O 3 


P 3 3 


■m a ■*-> 


cr 


c/5 P 3 


00 -H 


C «H 


•H -3 


O fH 


o c 


00 r-l 


•H -H 


•h ^r 


3 -rl "3 


■*-» • X 


P o 


■H X3 3 


CXOO cd 


O CD 


rH 3 3 


CD < X 


3 *-> 


a jz 


00 00 CD 


rl 


CD CD 00 


U 


P -3 


3 rn C 


1 1 


tO l-H 


H -rl 


Sh 


C CD 


S0 5. if, 


E- H O 


O T- 


COO 


00 00 tJU 


CJ Mi 


a <+-i -3 



CM tO 



2-34 



1. The present source of septage is almost exclusively emergency 
pumping from failing cesspools. Commercial establishments arc major 
contributors. With the implementation of abatement measures including 
sewering this source should be substantially reduced. 

2. The number of septic tank systems being pumped for maintenance 
purposes will gradually increase, generating additional flows, 

3. A town-mandated pumping schedule may control the timing of main- 
tenance pumping, thus controlling peak flows and eliminating the need 
for facility overdesign. 

4. The maintenance pumping schedule must be designed to accommodate 
the average sizes of systems in use and type of use which vary from 
town to town. 

Draft Chapter 4 recommended that towns explore several pumping schedules. 
The Step 1 facility plan should analyze the alternatives and recommend 
the optimum pumping schedule for the on-site system management program. 

Table 2.7 shows projected flows for all Cape Cod towns, assuming that 
sewers are installed in the proposed service areas. 1978 flows based on 
a telephone survey of dump operators and boards of health, are provided 
for comparison. Projected flows are based on the following assumptions: 

--Four people live in each dwelling unit. 

--Each dwelling unit is served by a 1,000 gallon septic tank. 

--The winter population has its septic tanks pumped every 

two years. 
--The summer population has its septic tanks pumped every 

four years . 
--The peak septage production period is spread over 2 months 

in the summer. 
--75 percent of the summer population has its septic tanks 

pumped during the peak period. 
--25 percent of the winter population has its septic tanks 

pumped during the peak period. 
--With regards to industry, 30 gallons of septage are produced 

per employee per year. 

(FROM: Task 2.8 Wastewater Management Solutions for Cape Cod, 
Anderson/Nichols Company, 1976) 

It is recommended that the 208-generated flows be used for design of 
regional septage facilities for towns not covered by a Step 1 needs 
survey. Since septage planning is a relatively new field, the 208 
agency should assist towns in refining the methods of septage flow 
projection through the ongoing planning program. 

Septage Treatment and Disposal 

Septage is presently accepted at the Barnstable sewer treatment facility, 
and will be accepted at Chatham's treatment plant when modifications are 
completed late in 1978. The remainder of the Cape Cod towns dispose of 
septage in open pits at the town disposal area, or in lagoon systems. 

2-35 



Disposal of septage in open pits is illegal under both state and federal 
laws, and lagoons are approved only on an interim basis by DEQE, until 
more advanced methods are proven to be feasible and reliable. 

Improper treatment of septage results in severe odor problems, ground- 
water contamination and the production of large amounts of offensive 
sludge which must be landfilled. Handling of the material can itself 
pose a health hazard. 

Table 4.2 of the draft plan presents costs, advantages and disadvantages 
of a number of septage treatment processes, but leaves the selection of the 
appropriate method to towns and their consultants. During the review 
period, however, local officials and citizens have requested stronger 
guidance from the 208 plan. The following sections present general 
considerations and specific recommendations on septage treatment methods. 

General Considerations 



1. The treatment and disposal method should not threaten groundwater quality 

Cape Cod is an area with unique problems to be addressed in selecting 
a septage treatment method. Since groundwater is the sole source of 
drinking water, any method which threatens groundwater quality would be 
undesirable. As shown in Table 4.2 , almost every method poses some 
degree of threat to groundwater quality. The least impact is apparently 
created by composting. The most serious threat is probably posed by 
super-chlorination, which has recently been shown to produce carcinogenic 
by-products. All land treatment methods fall in between these two, 
causing undesirable nitrogen contamination in amounts proportionate 
to the rate of loading. 

2. The treatment method should not produce offensive odors 

On Cape Cod, where development is encroaching upon existing disposal 
sites and open space is rapidly being consumed, odor is a serious 
consideration in septage treatment. All anaerobic processes produce 
offensive odors. Abatement of odors is provided by lime stabilization 
or composting. Lime stabilization raises the pH of the septage, to a 
point which inhibits production of most offensive gases. Lime also 
improves the dewatering (separation of solids and liquids) characteristics, 
and kills pathogens. Large amounts of lime are necessary, however, and 
groundwater contamination will result from disposal of both solids and 
liquid products. Composting, being an aerobic process, produces odorless 
carbon dioxide and water vapor. 

3. The treatment method should provide for resource recovery 

Most of the treatment methods listed in Table 4.2 produce a solid sludge 
that needs to be landfilled. Only composting and land spreading return 
the organic material and nutrients to the soil. Land spreading is not 
acceptable on Cape Cod because of groundwater considerations. The final 
product of composting can, however, be used as a soil conditioner and 
fertilizer. 



2-36 



4. Towns should avoid technologically sophisticated systems 

Although a very high degree of treatment can probably be achieved through 
advanced physical /chemical processes, towns should be cautious about 
selecting a method which uses complex mechanical systems or expensive 
and dangerous chemicals. The more sophisticated a system is, the higher 
the operation costs will be and more vulnerable it will be to breakdown. 
While it is hoped that regionalization will ensure skilled operation and 
better monitoring of treatment facilities, it must be realized that 
Cape Cod is a remote area and most of the small communities do not have 
chemists and engineers in town hall. 

From this perspective, lagoons and land treatment are the most desirable 
systems, and chemical oxidation is undesirable. Anaerobic/aerobic 
treatment is desirable only at a sewage treatment plant which already is 
required to have a trained operator. Composting requires use of an air 
pump and/or a bulldozer to aerate piles, but is otherwise a simple 
process. Pretreatment and dewatering, as proposed for the Rehoboth, Ma. 
system would complicate the process, but not to the extent that it should 
be eliminated. 

Recommended Treatment Methods 

The following recommendations are based on the four major considerations 
stated above. 

1. Towns should not make major investments in lagoon systems 

Several communities which have been ordered by DEQE to cease illegal 
dumping of septage have constructed "interim lagoons." These are anaerobic 
lagoons, which have been approved by DEQE on an interim basis until better 
methods have been proven reliable. Lagoons offer little improvement over 
open pits, causing serious groundwater pollution and odor problems. 

Lagoons have been reported to cost between $18,000 and $49,000 to con- 
struct. For comparison, the local share of a tri-town composting system, with 
federal and state funding, will probably average $30,000 for each of the 
three towns. Since the state has now approved two different septage 
treatment facilities (an anaerobic/aerobic system for Wayland/Sudbury 
in addition to the Rehoboth composting plant) there is no longer justi- 
fication for such expenditures for short-lived and inadequate solutions. 

Towns should deal with odor problems by liming septage pits and lagoons 
to a pH of 8.5 or by adding odor masking agents and proceed with plans 
for proper treatment facilities. 

2, Wherever possible, septage should be treated at sewage treatment plants 

Septage can be pretreated and "bled" into treatment plants at a rate of 
l%-5% of the sewage flow. The utilization of tried and proven technology 
favors this approach. Except where severe access problems might result, 
as could occur with the proposed Provincetown treatment plant, all future 
sewage treatment plants over 100,000 gal/day capacity should be adapted to 
accept septage. The cost of treating septage at treatment plants is 
estimated at $15.00 per 1,000 gallons treated. 

2-37 



3. Composting is the method of choice for separate septage facilities 
and should be given priority consideration 

In the composting process, septage is mixed with a carbon source, 
usually woodchips and sawdust, and piled in windrows. Aeration is 
provided by pipe circulation systems or by mechanical turning of the 
piles. The heat produced by microbial action kills pathogens giving 
off carbon dioxide and water vapor. Because it is an aerobic process, 
composting does not create odor problems. The final product, following 
proper treatment can be used as a soil conditioner for cultivation of 
non-food crops. A small amount of liquid effluent is produced. 

A pilot composting system was tested in Rehoboth, Ma., and the DEQE has 
approved a modified composting process for the Rehoboth/Swansea/Seekonk 
region. The proposed project would provide chemical pretreatment to 
ensure 100% pathogen kill, and mechanical dewatering to improve handling. 
The liquid effluent will be treated by spray irrigation. 

The projected cost for a 25,000 gal/day average capacity (peak 42,000) is 
$850,000. (Pio Lombardo Associates, telephone conversation) Projected 
operating costs at $10. per 1,000 gallons treated make this a very 
attractive system. The project has been approved as eligible for state 
and federal construction grants. - 

The availability of sawdust and woodchips for composting on Cape Cod 
needs to be further investigated. Importation of sawdust could increase 
the operating costs. Waste brush is presently chipped in several towns. 
A coordinated program, possibly involving regional sharing of a chipper, 
could possibly facilitate composting and alleviate a major solid waste 
disposal problem posed by brush. 

4. Towns should join together to construct regional septage facilities 

A regional approach to septage facility construction is recommended for 
the following reasons: 

All septage treatment methods currently available pose some 
potential threats to groundwater quality. Regionalization would 
minimize the number of potential pollution sources. 

Regionalization would render the utilization of full-time 
trained operators more cost-effective. A problem frequently 
encountered with small treatment plants is that trained operators 
are retained on a part-time basis, leaving the plant in the hands 
of untrained personnel most of the time. Greater supervision of 
treatment facility operation by DEQE would also be possible under 
a regional approach. 

Groundwater monitoring systems would be more cost-effective 
for regional systems. It is unlikely that a groundwater monitoring 
system would cost any more for a regional facility than one serving 
a single town. Since the monitoring system is a substantial expense 
(one for Orleans is estimated to cost $28,000) there is a direct 
economy of scale with regionalization. 



2-38 



Septage Facilities Needs 

Septage capacities at existing sewage treatment facilities and regional 
needs are summarized in Table 2.7 . A discussion of considerations in 
designating septage regions is found in draft Chapter 4. 



Costs 

Costs of decentralized solutions for Category 2 problem areas can range 
from $1,000 to $3,000 initially per user. This includes rehabilitation 
of on-site systems, installation of communal septic systems, or small 
neighborhood sewers with secondary treatment. No federal funding is 
assumed in this discussion, although these systems are eligible under 
federal regulations. 

Total user costs can range from $20 per year for a home on a septic 
tank system, including septage treatment, to $150/year for a homeowner 
on a neighborhood system. 

Septage costs include the local share of construction, which might range 
from $30,000-$50,000, assuming federal grants. (Total cost of $750,000- 
$1,000,000 for a regional facility.) Operation and maintenance of septage 
facilities averages $10-$15 per 1,000 gallons treated. Amortization, 
operation and maintenance for septage facility alone would range from 
$2-$10 per year, per household, assuming a 3-year pumping schedule is 
implemented. The cost would be in the lower range if federal funds are 
received. 



2-39 



CM 

►J 

CQ 
< 






o 



x 



< 

H 
P- 
UJ •— i 

co u 

< 

- < 

Q U 

Q 

< 



X 

i— i 
U 
< 

CL, 

< 



< 
z 

LO O 

CT» r- i 
en cj 

rH tU 

2 

CQ 

13 
co 





Q 




CO 


UJ 


H 


O. 


H 


Z 


UJ 




PJ s 


w 


CO o 


z 


i— i 


UJ X 




E- 


OS u- 


X 


co 


o. 


H 


UJ 




i— i 






-J 






i— i 






u 






< 






tp 




z 

o 


LU 




M 


CJ 




c; 


< 

P* 


CO 

z 


§ 


0- 


2 


CQ 


PJ 


O 


Z 3 


CO 


H 


hH CO 



"3 

CO 
O 
P* 
O 
P. 
&: 

o 

OO 
C 

•H 

P r-N 

0) CO 

2 03 
<D 
CO P 

00 

C 
•H 
£ -H 

3 > 
CO P 

oo 
o3 oo 




















. 








1 




CO 




1 

E 




















X 






00 








rfi 













o 


l 


O 


p 


C+H 










P 






P 






p 




c 













u 




r-H 


■«a- 





c 


O 


CO 









C 






•H 







03 


CD 


O 




•H 




o 




(X 












• H 




to 


oo 









• 


crj 





r-H 




r-H 


r- 


• H 


t3 


2 


-o 


p 








> 


03 


u 


o 


CO 





03 




O 


P 


P 




03 


-o 






P 


P 


I— t 


•3 


r-H 






T3 


r-H 









•r— i 


p 


CO 


P 




p 


X 


C 


to 


3- 


c 




CO 







3 


C 


3 


X 




03 


03 


-3 


* 


to 







CO 


a 









crj 


crj 


03 


03 




•H 


«P 


3 


O 


n3 


O 


p 




X 






CO 


•H 


cti 





03 







CO 




i-i 




O 


X 




X 


O 


P 


O 


CO 


s 


•H 






O 


X 


• H 






a 




to 




P 





Ch 


T3 








+J 




P 








r-H 







•H 


P 


P 


■M 


E 


CO 


o 






C 


X 










o 






CD 


CO 


X 


6 


* 


•H 




> 


oo 


3 


O 


r-H 


H 


03 


p 


rH 







p 


p 


p 


00 


p 




P 


E 


C 


P 


O 


r-H 


rO 




03 





O 






o 






03 




E 




c 





03 






,o 


O 


o 


•H 


U 


03 


•H 




X 


rH 


E 


p 




Uh 


T-t 


T3 


C 







o 








P 







<P 


a 


a 


i— 1 


(p 


C 


CO 








r—t 


crj 






03 


c 


o 




OO 


p 


E 


•r-> 


a + 






p 




• H 




03 


V) 







crj 


03 




• 


CO 


C 


CO 


•H 




c 




p 


o 


a 


03 




P 


3 


p 








U 












U. 


X 





C 


o 




00 




03 





03 


p 


CO 


3 




to 


O 





03 


00 









3h P 




P 


rH 


2 


•H 


oo 







P 








CU 




cr 




•H 




2 


CH 


03 


T) 







X 


3 


<P 


•H 


X 


O 


oo 


c 


H 




P 


3h 


P 




2 







X 


CD 







P 


O 


03 




CO 


O 


r-H 


r-H 


•H 


P 





03 






crj 


X 


P 


CO 





T3 







X 


CO 


X 


au 






o3 


X 




•H 


t/) 




p. 


rH 









00 




■H 


Z 


03 






P 




o 







T3 


• 


2 


crj 







03 


Jh 




Ph +■ 







rt 













to 




X 


•H 


CO 








CO 






• 


03 





3 







03 




r* 


S 


i— 


X 









<U 


e 


o 


2 




Ch p 


c 


-3 


CO 


CQ 


C+H 


Mh 


O 


P 


X 


p 




03 




P 


03 


• 


X 




•H 


o 


• H 


T3 


r-H 


cd 


•H 


2 


C 


C 


U, 






C4H 


crj 


p 


03 




E 


E 




CQ 


03 






P 




2 


C 


i-H 


U 


e 


O 


03 


o 


< 


p 







3 


•H 


A 






O 


<P 







*3 




•H 


00 t 


03 


OJ 




•H 


P 




•H 




c 


X 





r-H 


rH 







T3 


P 


O 


to 


p 


i— i 




r— 1 


c 


c 


CO 







rH 







</) 


CO 







to 


03 


•H 


CO 




rH 


<p 




T3 


03 


3 


• 


•H 


•H 


03 







X 







e 


CO 


•rH 


E 


X 





> 









3 




X 


P 




O 


2 


X 


13 


CO 





rH 


P 


VN 





rH 


3 


P 


p 


03 


X 





03 


03 




O 





p 


03 





x 


o 


■H 


C 




e 


T3 




O 


£ 


3 





o 


03 


E 


p 




CH 






r- 


00 


• H 


Kl 





00 


rH 


CO 


0) 


T3 


C 


P 




x 


o 


to 











o 




P 




00 


03 





N 


•H 




CH 


to 


Oh 


C 




03 


03 





p 


CQ 


•H 


p 


?H 


C 


p 


p 


rH 


,o 






P 


03 


3 


> 


E 




O 


CD 


03 




X 




X5 






T3 


03 


P 


O 


03 




o 


«4H 







a, 


P- 


CQ 


p 


o3 


00 


CUT 




• 




■t 




rH 


•4 








• H 


X 





CM 




• 


rH 





crj 







X 


C 






X 


CO 


X 





X 





X 


X 


X 





00 


P 







-o 


X 


X 


i/> 





CH 


CO 





•H 


r-H 


*\ 


P 


p 


r-H 


P 


r-H 


X 





H 


P 


00 







p 


+-> 





p 


03 






o 




h 


c 


03 


c 


3 


o 


X) 


•H 


X 


P 


•H 


03 


•H 


03 


rH 


T3 


p 


r^ 





•H 


P 


p 







P 


03 


•H 


P 


O 


O 





o3 


t/5 


03 


o 


2 


C 


i— 1 


2 







•H 





c 


rH 


00 




X 


p 





^ 


03 


CD 


•H 


E 


•1 — 1 


X 




X 




T3 


•H 


•H 





c 


H3 


g 


P 




•H 


£ 





P 


CO 


2 




6 


> 


00 


r-H 


O 


o 





O 


• 


C 


E 





CO 


2 


C 


E 


P 













o 


<D 


C 


CD 





CD 


03 


rH 


rH 


X 


?H 


x. 


03 


• H 


03 




O 





O 


3 


X 


03 


03 





Mh 


s 


CO 


•H 


P 


CO 


P 


PL, 


CrXh 


a. p 


CO 


r-H 


<P 


CTJ 


P 


E 








p 


<P 


CQ 


crj 


O 





rH 

X 

P 03 

O rH 

Z -H 

03 

> 

< 







o 
z 



X 
o3 



03 
> 



C 

o 






o 
o 
in 

LO 



o 


o 


o 


o 


"3- 


en 


•^ 


* 


CN 


f- 


LO 


vO 



O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


vO 


o 


cr. 


o 


LO 


LO 


to 


vO 


vO 


r—^ 


rH 


CM 


rH 


^ I 


O 



o 








o 








c 






r* 


* 






03 


rH 


to 







rH 


** 




0- 


| 


CM 


to 




o 


c 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


00 


o 


o 



LO 



CM 



LO 



X 










03 










CQ 










E 










oo o3 


X 






X 


13 X 










p 


P 


•H 








3 


03 P 


2 


C 


PH 


O 


M 03 


•a 


P 


X 


E 


N S 


o3 


3 


00 


t—^ 


3 


O 


03 


03 


CQ uD - 


CO 


CQ 


S 


PL 





E,= 

O 3 C 

cq o a. o 

g X -H 

rH oo OO 

03 OS 

CO U, S P 



O 
O 

LO 

co 

LO 



o 
© 

(N 



© 
© 
© 

CN 
I 

© 
© 
© 

© 
CM 




rH 

X 
03 
P 

00 

c 
p 

03 
CQ 



2-40 



CO 

2 

UJ 



o 
u 






< 

H 
a. 

UJ 

co u 

< 

j a. 

- < 

a 



LO 

cr, 
c. 



< 

Cu 

< 
u 



< 

o 



Du 
< 



O 

t-H J 

O u. 
w 

OS ^ 

CO < 

co o- 



CM 

UJ 

cc 

< 



co 

a 
uj 

UJ 

>- 



CJ 

< 

U, 
UJ 

u 
< 

c, 

UJ 
CO 



Q 

UJ 



Mh 
CO 

UJ 



UJ 



o 

I— I 

CJ 
UJ 
OSS 

_£ CQ 
O 2 3 

[_ H-| tO 



CO 



x 



T3 
0) 
00 

o 

o 
u 

Cu 
cm 

o 

60 

c 



<L) to 

2 03 

cu 

CO P 

60 

C d> 

■H O 

E -H 

3 > 

00 p 

00 0) 

03 00 









0) 




X 


1 






















P 


-O 








P 






. 












1 




P 


1 


+J 


Ph 












— 










c 


CU 








• H 






>> 












1 


00 


3 


i— 1 


P 3 


cu 




^ X 








lo 






to 




CU 


"O 






03 


1— 1 






p 





cm 






P 


00 


•H 


P 


•H 


CO O 


00 




1—1 +j 


to 




1 


p 


to 




•H 




p 


c 








■ H 




to 


•rH 


CU 





to 




03 


C 


X 


3 


u 


03 £ 






■H P 


o3 


X 


E 





03 


1 


c 




X 


cu 




CU 


CU 


CJ 




p 


^^ 


p 




•rH 




X 


O 


H 


CM 


03 


0) 5h 


CD 




2 O 




(— 1 


O 







C 


c 


T3 


CU 


E 




p 


p 


03 




•H 


•H 


X 


p 






P 


•H 






CH 


<— 1 o3 


4-> 




E 


, — < 


p 


O 


•r-, 


60 





CU 


C 




E 


cu 


03 


03 


4h 






O 


p 


c 


^ 






60 




X 




>H 


03 




C 5h 


00 


c 


CU 


O 


C 


O 


a 


03 


CU 





X 


1— t 


•H 






CU 


03 




cu 


P 




C 


03 


• 


p 


P 


P 


P 




o3 03 


r-~ 


CU 


J-i 


5h 


•H 








X 







» — ' 


P 


cu 




3 


cm 





E 


O 




03 


5-i 


E 


•H 


CD 


03 P 


o3 




r-( >- 


CT) 


5h 




Cl, 


> 


cu 




r. 


p 


cu 


O 




•H 


60 




to 




X 


cu 


2 




1—1 




rt 


2 


P 


03 


Ps 




P-, 


»M 


5h 


to 




5h 


X 


• 


CM 




p 


P 


«* 


c 


03 




p 


t-H 


p 


00 






Ph 


0) 


r| 




03 


60X 


(1) 




cu 




P 


•H 


C 


CU 




to 


O 









CU 


•H 


p 




3 


03 




c 


Cw 






60 


+3 


p 


2 


c +-> 


to 




<-* X 


CU 


O 




O 


to 


to 


p 




p 


cu 


P 


E 




P- 




Ph 


C 




03 







p 


03 


03 


03 


cu 


•H 






03 p 


p 




P 


•H 




CD 


p 


P 




1— 


03 


•H 


-O 


cu 






O 


> 


p 






t-t— I 


P 


X 


X 


p 


P T3 


5-i 




c 


03 


C 


1— 1 


P 


P 


P 





to 


to 


p 


cu 


P 


1— 1 


to 




O 


•H 


p 


p 


CD 




03 


&.U 


P 


t/5 


a C 





• 


c 


I— 1 


03 




u 


O 


•H 


CM 


03 


p 




Ph 




3 






P 


60 


CU 


03 


Ph 




5-i 





■~-^. 




03 


CD 03 




to 


•H O 


V — ' 


1— 1 




p 


cm 


to 


CM 


CU 


a 


p 


Ph 


CU 


O 


1—1 






CU 


to 







• 


T3 


!/5 


X 


c 


2 


O 


-d 


cu 


60 




Ph 


. 


5m 






CU 


P 


CU 


03 


03 


1— 1 


X 


03 




-3 


p 




p 





P 






O 







O •> 


<D 


•H 


CJ CO 


T) 




E 


P 


1— ( 


P 




X 


"I—I 


X 




x 


to 


C 




CU 







03 


to 


c 


CD 


O 


•H 


• H 


CO 


03 CD 


C 


P 


5h 1-1 


CU 


X 


03 


to 


03 


c 


60 


03 





p 


P 


03 




O 




60 


to 


p 


cu 




cu 


X 


2 


5 


+-> 


•- 


60 


• H 


•H 


UJ 


P 


P 


X 


C 


•H 


cu 


c 




p 




O 


C 


X 


• H 




03 


•H 




r— 


< 


£ 


P 


+-> 


5-1 


a. 


E 


4-1 03 


X 


t-H 


to 


CU 


•H 


P 


O 


+J 


E 


•H 


Ph 


Ph +■ 


C 


O 


O 


60 




P 


X 


c 


■H 




P- 






03 


E 


o3 


O P 


E 


•H 


•H 0) 


I— 1 


1— 1 


03 


u 


c 


p 


c 


CU 




c 




to 


•H 


cu 




1-4 


p 





1— 1 




O 


C 


E 


X 


3 


X 


Ph 


O 


O 


X X 


P-, 


•H 


^ 




cu 


03 


c 


CU 


CU 


cu 


O 


03 


2 


p 




O 




•H 




• 


f—C 


■ H 


P 




00 


P 


CD O 





03 


P P 


E 


O 


U 


5-i 


p 


CU 


03 


^ 


to 


> 


-3 


CU 


P 






O 


p 


p 


CJ 


to 


CD 




O 


*o 


00 


03 


i— 1 00 




cp 




O 


03 




CU 





U 


r- 1 




cu 


cu 




P 


03 


03 




C 





oS 


r- 


C 


> 


*o 


tp 


e 


03 


X 


X 


P 




CM ^H 





CM 


c 


2 


p- 


P 


PhT 


X 




to 




T- 






CU 


3 





P 


2 


CU 


CD 




03 




u 


o3 to 


<d 





O -H 






•H 


CU 








r— 1 


p 


cu 


c 


03 




P 






p 







O 


-0 


TJ 


00 




0) 




Ph- 


X 


60 


P 


c 


t— 1 




CO 


cu 


CU 


cu 


3 




X 







x> 


O 




c 


p 


1—1 


CM 


P 




C 


C 


X 


X 


w 


03 X 


■p 


03 


X C 


cu 




T3 




r- 


60 


to 


O 


** 


p 


•H 


P 


c 


cm 


• 


cu 


to 




O 




p 


CU 


2 


P 


P 


2 


O O 


•H 


5-i 


P P 


cu 


P-. 


CU 




P 


03 


cu 


X 


c 




P 


•H 


OS 




to 


cu 


c 


p 




CU 





6 


O 


P 




O 


•H 


CO 


<L> 


■H 


X 


CU 


P 


CU 




P 


X 


to 


•H 


c 


3 


X 




c 


cu 


X 





to 


cu 


P-T3 


E 


P 


O 


c 


H 


CD 2 




2 


— 1 C 




P 


03 


X 


P 


Ph P 






1— 1 


i—i 


p 


to 


03 


> 







CD 


(/) 


03 


c 


O 




E 





Cp 


X 5-4 


-0 


0) 


•H 2 


to 


CO 


•H 


p 


oS 


CU 




X 


CU 




O 


•p 


• H 


r-i 


1— 1 


to 




X 


3 


u 


p 


O 


5-i 


5-i 






03 


!— 1 


to 


X O 


o3 




P 




X 


to 


c 


O 


p 




to 


2 


C 


Ph 


cu 


03 







03 






CD 


3 


o3 


13 


T3 


tj as 


•H 




•H C 


X 


03 


•H 


c 


p 




■ H 


• H 


o3 


• 






c 




to 


X 


p 


cu 


O 


p 


^ 


p 


O 


X 


a> 


CD 


1—1 


P 


TU 


to ^5 






c 


•H 




t-H 




2 


Ph 


cu 


1— i 


cu 


cu 


X 


E 






X 


CD 


CD 


<— 1 




cm 


V 


00 


00 


3 U-i 


X 


C 


oj 


p 


to 


•H 




c 


03 


T3 


P 


•H 


1— 1 


03 


f— 1 





P 


cu 


to 


1— 1 


p 


X 


2 


p 


00 




to 


03 


03 







03 


Cu> 0) 





n3 




-o 





c 


CU 


03 


O 


X 


C 


X 




•H 


X 


c 








O 


c 


03 


CD 


•H 


X 


cu 


2 


H3 




cw jo 


cu 




60 


CU 


•H 





P 


m 


iH 


•H 


O 


•H 


/ s 


I-H 


p 


a 




to 


to 


1— i 


a> 


2 


00 


c 




P 


+J 


1— 1 


CD 




•r-» 


1— 1 


C 


nd 


p 


• H 


CU 




P 


to 


•H 


to 


en 


•H 




CU 


Ph 


•H 


C 




to 




CD 


r-j 


00 





X P 


P 


60 


CU P 


O 


t-H 


• H 


c 





60 T3 


T3 


P 


to 


60 


03 


r-» 


O 


p 


i—i 


CU 




2 


CD 


CD 


P 


x 


53 


03 


p 


P 03 


O 


03 


x 


5-i 


CU 


CU 


cu 


cu 


CU 


• H 


C 


03 





cu 


cu 


CT^ 


03 





p 


P 


p 


O 


X 


P 


HH 


p 


Q 


2 


•H 


•H Ph 


2 


P 


H C 


Ph 


2 


X 


E 


to 


U 


to 


03 


Ph 


Ph 


P 


cm 


i—( 


cm 


cm 





CO 


1— 1 


P 


P 


P- 



o 
o 
00 

<N 



o 
c 

LO 



vD 



r- 



o 
o 

LO 

LO 
LO 



o 
o 

LO 

LO 



o 
o 
o 



\D 



o 
o 

CTi 
CN 



o 

o 

00 



o 
o 
o 



o 
o 



o 
o 

CO 
K3 









O 


O 








O 


O 


vC 


c 


O 


vO 


•1 


•\ 


*. 


■ 


r- 


"3- 


■^r 


LO 


1 — 1 


r-H 


CM 


LO 


















O 


O 







c 


O 


•» 




*\ 


O 







r— ( 


•( 




1 




1— 1 
1 


CNJ 

1—1 





O 


O 


1 





O 


O 


O 





O 


O 


O 


<n 


*\ 


•. 


O 


Csl 


O 


O 


* 


LO 


rsi 


.— 1 


SO 



o 

o 
o 



c 
o 

00 



X 








p 




X 


E 


3 


to 





03 


O 


• l-l 


•i-t 


^H 


E 


C 


2 


P 


P 


e 


p 


03 


03 


CD 


CO 


X 


>* 


a 


X 


u 







p 


E 


to 


CD 


03 


c 


P 


*— 


a3 


to 


P 


CD 


2 


to 


l-H 


a 


03 


p 


p 


UJ 





CQ 



2-41 






CO 

o 
u 



< 

E- X 

0- H 

P4 i— i 

CO CJ 

< 

- < 

Q U 

Q 

< 



X 

i— i 
U 
< 
Q_ 
< 



X 

< 



H 
CO 

< 



lo O O 

a, i— i j 

CT> O tu, 

rH UJ 

a; ^ 

CO 



< 

P. 





a 






CO 


cu 


H 




a 


H 


Z 




PJ 


S 


uj 


*-^ 


PJ 


CO 


o 


2 


i— i 


PJ 


-J 




H 


Qi 


u. 


X 


CO 


CU 




E- 


pj 






t-H 








J 








1 1 








CJ 








< 








u. 






z 

o 


PJ 






KH 


o 






CJ 


< 


CO 




PJ 


H 


z 




ec: 


0- 


y-i 




CQ 


PJ 


o 


z 


3 


CO 


p 


1— 1 


CO 



-a 


on 
o 

o 

p 

Ph 

Ph 

o 

DO 

c 

•H 

P rs 
V) 

2 rt 


(/! 5-1 

P 

• H 

E -H 

3 > 
(0 5h 
(/} 
o3 to 









\ 


CD 






O 










Ph 




£ 


r* 






2 




1 




5-i 


o 




3 


03 




CD 


P 


>N 


to 




O 


i-H 




t/i 


E 


P 
< 


DO 
03 


CD 


X 


•H 

to 




P 


rH 


• 


CD 


r-H 




P 


to 


5h 


to 




2 


o3 


P 


X 


i— ( 




Ph 


CD 


CD 


o3 


. 


o 




o 


P 


CD 


• 


CD 


<-* 


Mh 




E 


+-> 


P 


•H 




5 


CD 


to 


P 


«+-( 


M-l 


CD 


CD 


Ph 


DO 


DO 




i— i 






O 


O 


+-> 





CD 


CD 


p 


X^ 


CD 








to 


c 





5-i 


•H 


P 


•H 


P 


• 


5h 


CD 


X 


•H 







5-i 


CD 


W 


03 


O 


CD 


U1 


to 


> 


03 


to 


3 


> 


03 


5-i 


5-i 


•H 


03 




o 




•H 


-o 




<D 


o3 


3 


rH 


CQ 


rH 


5-i 


X4 




X^ 


Ph 


5-i 


5-1 




03 


Cu 


i— i 


P 


to 


03 


P 


CD 


H 


03 


CD 


c 




X 




p 


E 


3 


to 




CD 


U 


O 


p 


ai 


r- 


o 








T3 




rH 


•H 


•H 


X 


• H 


■H 


v£> 


c 


03 


C 


c 


O 


DO 




O 




P 


o 




03 


03 


U- 


CD 


+-> 


5-i 


X3 


o3 





•H 


CD 








M 


i-H 


Ph 


CD 


P 


P 


P 


X 


+J 


CD 


rH 




•H 




O 


•H 


3 


03 




CD 


3 


•H 


03 


3 


Tj 


3 


E 


O 


N) 


X) 


CD 


to 


< 




X 


i— i 


T3 


•H 


CSS 


•H 


i— l 


rH 


5h 




DO 




3 


O 


rH 




i— ( 


3 


4-) 


3 


o 


c 


e 


O 


P 




c 


03 


o 


rH 


ft 


5- 


•H 


CD 


o 


P- 


to 


o 


p 


3: 


I— 1 




3 


T3 


P 






<S) 




O 




CD 


-a 


5-. 


s 


(/> 


o 


CD 


CD 


u 


•H 


CD 


S£ 


r—< 


H 


3 


X 


P 


DO 


U 


■H 


DO 


> 




3 




<4H 


t/> 


3 


o3 


o 


Ph 


CD 


•H 


5h 


O 


X 






P 


P 


03 


Ph 


5h 


P 


O 


X 


•P 


c 


5-i 


E- 


Ph 




03 




o3 


CH 


to 


5h 


•H 


0) 




CD 


<D 


rH 


o3 


P 






O 




2 


( T"| 


W 


5h 


P 




5-i 


+J 


to 


z 


CD 


CD 


P 




CD 




X 


CD 


e 


c 




O 


10 


5h 


CD 


> 


5h 





P 


03 


£ 





r- 
>— 




O 


X 


CD 


CD 


3 


i— i 


rH 


o 


X 


03 


< 


2 


P 


CO 


E 


to 


o3 


a. +-> 


•p 


+J 



o 
o 

00 
CM 



o 
o 
o 

o 



o 
o 
oo 

CM 



c 
o 

00 
CNI 



o 
o 
oc 



o 
o 



to 



U-) 





o 






o 






o 


O 




* 


O 




L0 


c 




CM 

1 


#1 

to 


o 


o 


1 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


c 


•» 


•\ 


o 


o 


o 


*» 


vO 


rsi 


r-j 


c 






2 






o 






4-> 




p 


CD 




<D 


O 




CD 


C 




i— I 


■H 


o 


t+H 


> 


5-i 


T— 1 


o 


3 


rH 


5-i 


5h 


CD 


0- 


H 


3£ 















^ 


+-> 














DO 


•H 














P 


CJ 














•H 


03 














P 


P- 














CD 


03 














3 


O 




13 










a 






C 










yi 


P 




03 










T3 


CD 




(/} 










O 


to 




X 










+-> • 







03 






. 




•H C 


p 




TJ 






T3 




E E- 


p- 


■ 













•H CO 




<4H 


O 






P 




rH 


+J 


<p 


to 






03 




P 


u 


03 








tJ 




O 03 


CD 


p 


X 






•H 




P 


T—l 


to 


X 






i-H 
•H 




O X 

E P 


Ph 
O 


03 ' 


T3 






X 




• H 


P 


CD 


CD 






03 




-a o 




rH 


id 






X 




P 03 


+-> 


03 


•H 






CD 




CD P- 


O 




> 






P 




E 03 


P 


t—t 


•H 










E U 




03 


13 






P 




o 


to 


to 








CD 




U P 


o 


o 


00 






CD 




O CD 


o 


p- 


r^ 






X 




P 2 


"O 


to 


C". 










o 




•H 


rH 






to 




X rH 


o 


T3 








oj 




03 


p 




X 






rj 




E -O 


3 


TJ 


rH 










rf 


DO 


C 


3 






E 




CO 03 


• r-^ 


o3 


^ 






CD 
P 




H 


Ph 


X 


<4H 






V) 




2 


to 


P 


o 






X 




O 


•rH 


rH 








c/i 




• i-H 


r* 


03 


X 










to <P 


H 


CD 


p 






T3 




03 




X 


c 






CD 




CD CD 






o 






rH 




P DO 


• 


Ch 


E 






•H 




03 03 


2 


O 








03 




P 


O 




p 






<+H 




CD P- 


i—t 


to 


•H 










O CD 


Ph 


T3 








p 




•H t/5 


• 


5h 


T3 






o 




> 


O- 


03 


CD 






•r-» 


• 


P P 


D0E-" 


O 


> 






03 


X 


a cd 


03 CO 


X 


•H 






E 


03 


(A X 


2 „ 




CD 


• 






-a 


DO 


E 


<p 


CD 


^ 




•\ 


^^ 


P -H 


to 03 


o 


CD 


U 


• 


P 


o 


CD X 


X 




5-i 


3 


o 


O 


o 


2 


PH «_> 


w 




P 


to 


in 


o 


CD X 


C 03 


X 


to 


P 




o3 


■t 


tO rH 


X 


CD 


T3 




X 


CD 


o 


rH 


tfl u 


> 


03 


• 


X 


to 


rH 


c rt 


p 


5h 


C 


rH 








03 »H 


O P- 


3 


i—i 


rfl 


i-H 


00 


to 


rH ^J 


•H C 


W 


r* 


CJ 


rt 


r» 


a 


P- C 


p 




o 




p 


c^ 


DO 


rr 


y c 


CD 


3 


O 


o 


r—{ 


P 


r- P 


o 


P 


5h 


o 


p 




03 


P-i to 


•JTS'H 


O 


P 


o 




5h 


X 


03 £ 


C P 


X 




rH 


X 


O 


o 


P 3 


p rt 


Ph 


rH 




rH 


Cm 


to 


T3 to 


p. 


o 


03 


X 


X 




•H 




■H 


r-1 


4J 


X 


p 


to 


-3 


00 c 


00 PH 


CD 


O 




c 


to 




O -H 


O »H 


P 


P 


"O 


o 


CD 


4-> 


CNI 


cn -a 






CD 


E 


r-i 


03 


DO 


o 


C 


c 


•H 






E 


P P 


C E 


O 


o 


rH 


-o 


CD 


O 


O -H 


o 






P. 


CD 


X 


P 


P 


o 


T3 


T3 


•H 


XI 




-o 


TJ <-( 


"3 P 


CD 


CD 


P 


•H 


rH 


p 


CD 3 





to 


(/) 


rH 


> 


rH 


3 


</> to 


to 


03 


«J 


3 


•H 


■H 


03 


03 <D 


<A 3 


CQ 


CQ 


E 


Q 


^ 


J 


CQ P 


CQ T3 



CM 



to 



LO \D 



2-42 



STATE ACTION 

While the initiative to construct septage treatment facilities has 
occasionally originated locally, the implementation of a regional 
septage management scheme depends heavily upon supportive actions 
from regulatory and funding agencies. Specifically: 

1. EOEA should develop a septage treatment policy to guide towns and 
DEQE in selection of adequate septage treatment methods. 

2. DEQE should support regional efforts to establish septage facil- 
ities through its regulatory powers. Orders to abate dumping at 
landfills should be issued in such a way as to encourage regional 
treatment facilities rather than town-by-town construction of anaerobic 
lagoons. For example, groups of towns in proposed septage regions 
should be placed under orders at the same time. Once a Step 1 facility 
plan for a regional facility has been completed, DEQE should order all 
towns in the region to institute septage treatment and not renew lagoon 
approvals . 

3. DWPC should give priority to funding of septage facilities for 
regional treatment plants through 201 grants to one lead town. Funding 
eligibility should be based on the following conditions: 

A complete needs survey should be performed in the lead town. 
Neighborhood systems and on-site system upgrading should also be 
grant eligible in the lead town. 

For other cooperating towns in the region, DWPC should accept 
208 information as satisfying Step 1 requirements for the septage 
facility, providing that there are no Category 1 sewer needs in 
those towns. 

Neighborhood. systems and upgrading in the other towns would 
not be grant funded unless a 201 Step 1 with complete needs 
assessment is subsequently performed in those towns. 

Septage flows for the cooperating towns will be developed by 
the towns and 208 agency through a technical assistance program. 

It is recommended that towns with Category 1 sewer needs be lead agencies 



4. DWPC should reserve construction funds for non- sewered projects 
including on-site systems and neighborhood collection and treatment 
systems in the towns listed on Table 2.5. 

REGIONAL ACTION 

1. The CCPEDC's Solid Waste Advisory Committee, which is concerned 
with the problem of septage disposal, should explore legal/institu- 
tional arrangements and support applications by subregions for fed- 
eral funds, with the assistance of the 208 planning staff. A formal 
coordinative mechanism between this committee and the Water Resources 
Advisory Council should be established. 



2-43 



2. CCPEDC through its model on-site system management program, should 
demonstrate a model Step 1 procedure for evaluating decentralized 
solutions . 



LOCAL ACTION 

1. Towns should join a regional effort to develop septage treatment 
facilities. With the assistance of the 208 planning staff towns should 
apply for funds to construct regional systems as described in Table 2.7. 

2. Towns indicated in Table 2.5 "Neighborhood Solutions Needs" should apply 
for Step 1 funds to develop decentralized solutions for large Category 2 
problem areas and implement on-site system management in the rest of the 
town. 



2-44 



On-Sste System Management 

Failure of on-site sewage disposal systems has been identified as the 
major wastewater management problem on Cape Cod. The draft plan ex- 
plored in detail several alternative management schemes, with emphasis 
placed on proper installation techniques and town-enforced maintenance 
of septic systems. 

Comments have been received from many sources indicating that greater 
emphasis should be placed on the identification and upgrading of fail- 
ing systems. Concern has been expressed, however, over the legal as- 
pects of such a program. Legal considerations were also raised about 
the enforcement of a maintenance program, and several comments were 
made about the inadequacy of existing septage facilities to receive 
additional flows from maintenance pumping. 

Many comments and discussions throughout the review period have led to 
greater emphasis on local and state enforcement capabilities. It has 
also become evident during the review that an education program is cru- 
cial to adoption of recommended actions on the local level. 

The following on-site system management program represents a substan- 
tial revision in response to these comments. 

STATE ACTION 

1. DEQE should consider a regulatory mechanism for assuring that health 
agents and inspectors are qualified to implement subsurface disposal 
regulations . The fundamental recommendation of the 208 plan to improve 
on-site system management practices is that all towns should have a 
registered sanitarian for a health agent. It has been pointed out 
earlier, however, that not all registered sanitarians have training 

and experience in soils sciences and sanitary waste disposal methods. 
Further, health agents frequently rely on field inspectors who have only 
on-the-job training. A regional training program on Title 5 and 
techniques of on-site system installation and maintenance is recommended 
below. The DEQE should consider regulations or legislation that would 
require that all agents of the board of health involved in implementing 
Title 5 be required to complete an adequate training program. 

2. DEQE should review information in the Draft 208 Plan and revise 
Title 5 requirements in the following areas : 

a. Timing of soils tests--consider restrictions of soil tests 
to wet months. 

b. Water table determinations—based on USGS project to develop 
a method of correcting observed water table readings. 

c. Compost toilets--Evaluate the operation of humus toilets in 
Massachusetts to date and reconsider requirements on burial 
of compost. 

d. Maintenance—revise recommendation that tanks be pumped an- 
nually to require regular maintenance, when tanks are 1/3 
full of sludge. 



■45 



3. The DEQE District Engineer should exercise his authority to 
implement Title 5 and to abate nuisances . The 208 program recommends 
that immediate action is necessary in Category 1 problem areas to abate 
septic system failures, and resultant water quality and public 
health nuisances. DEQE should take appropriate actions to require the 
upgrading or replacement of failing systems if local efforts fail to 
make progress towards abating these problem within the first two years 
following certification of this plan. 

4. The Secretary of Environmental Affairs and the legislature should 
seek and appropriate adequate funds for DEQE to investigate problem 
areas and enforce Title 5 in the Cape Cod area. Additional personnel 
at the Southeast Regional District Engineer's office in Lakeville is 
necessary to provide adequate enforcement as described above. 

5. DEQE should investigate and recommend control of chemical septic 
system additives . Reports have been received by 208 staff and health 
officials in other areas of trees being killed, homeowners and septage 

haulers being burned, household fixtures and flooring being damaged 
and private wells being affected by the use of acids. Long Island 
health officials report having found chlorinated hydrocarbons and pe- 
troleum distillates contained in one product in groundwater and public 
supply wells. They are conducting field tests in 1978-79 on this product. 
It is generally known that they do not provide a long term solution. 

No effective legal control mechanism appears to exist. Legislation will 
probably be necessary to bring them under control. When, and if 
adequate evidence is assembled, action by the Attorney General on the 
basis of nuisance may be possible. Local boards of health could possibly 
control use on the basis of its being a "repair" requiring a permit 
under Title 5. 

DEQE should collect all existing data and conduct necessary field tests 
to substantiate ineffectiveness and water quality hazards and work with 
the Department of Public Health, the Executive Office of Environmental 
Affairs, and the Attorney General's office to develop and implement 
necessary control measures. 

6. DEQE should recommend legislation to increase town board of 
health authority to require upgrading and mandatory pumping . 

REGIONAL ACTION 

While the authority to enforce on-site system management recommendations 
lies at the town level, considerable technical assistance shoula be 
provided to the towns by the regional 208 agency (CCPEDC) in coordination 
with the County Health Department. 

1. CCPEDC should conduct a demonstration on-site system management 
program. Using implementation funds, CCPEDC should hire a sanitary 
engineer to work in two cooperating towns to evaluate problem areas 
designated by 208 and to help set up an on-site system maintenance 
program. Technical aspects of field investigation, determination of 
failure, development of abatement measures and projection of septage 
flows should be demonstrated. Model regulations to improve Title 5 
enforcement based on experience with local conditions should be prepared. 

2-46 



2. County Health sanitarian s should continue to prov ide se rvices to 
loca l boards of health in Title 5 enforcement and problem i nvestigation 
in coordination with the 208 program . A Memorandum of Understanding 
should be drafted for CCPEDC and County Health to coordinate local 
assistance and conduct demonstration programs. County Health sanitarians 
should coordinate their efforts in Title 5 related activities with the 
208 program by supporting and implementing the 208 recommendations. 

3. CCPEDC should assist towns in seeking funds for on-site system 
rehabilitation . Several grants and loan programs under U.S. Department 
of Housing and Urban Development are potential sources of funds for low 
income families to repair and upgrade on-site systems. These include 
grants to towns through the Community Block Grants Program, to housing 
authorities through Section 312 Housing Rehabilitation Loans and to 
individuals through Farmers' Home Administration Section 502, Low and 
Moderate Income Housing Loans, Section 504, Very Low Income Housing 
Loans and HUD Section 200K Guaranteed Loans. 

The strict eligibility requirements and generally low funding 
levels of these programs could limit the applicability of these 
funding sources on Cape Cod. Staff of the CCPEDC should continue 
their efforts to assist towns in applying for funds. 

On-site systems are also eligible for funding under the 1977 Amendments 
to the Clean Waters Act as part of a comprehensive 201 facility plan. 
It is required that the town guarantee that the systems will be 
properly maintained. This could be accomplished by direct town 
maintenance (through a contract with septage haulers) or possibly by 
contract with the homeowners. The 208 planning program and Water Resources 
Advisory Council should make every effort to influence the Division of 
Water Pollution Control to give due consideration to allocating funds for 
on-site system rehabilitation where this is the cost-effective solution. 

Another potential means of financing is the Betterment Act (MGL, Ch. 80). 
The abatement of pollution and public health nuisances would be the "public 
use" derived from such use of local funds. Through this act local funding 
might be used to upgrade on-site systems. The cost would then be assessed 
to the owners as a betterment assessment over a period of years. It is 
likely that the town would have to obtain an easement to construct the 
system on the property, and that the system would then be owned by the 
town. The system could either be maintained by the town or by the owner 
under contract to the town. There is no known precedent for such use of 
betterment assessments in Massachusetts. Technical assistance from CCPEDC 
should be provided to towns in further researching and implementing this 
approach. 

Requesting the Division of Water Pollution Control to form a water pol- 
lution abatement district is another possible funding route, which would 
result in sharing of costs by the homeowners in a problem area. A water 
pollution abatement district could consist of the parts of one or more 
towns with problems. The cost of rehabilitation or replacement of faulty 
systems would be financed through the district's bonding powers, and 
would be amortized through district taxes and user charges. 



2-47 



4. A training program for all personnel involved in on-site system 
management should be jointly sponsored by CCPEDC, DEQE and County Health . 
A training program for all personnnel involved in on-site system installa- 
tion should be held to improve implementation of Title 5. The program 
should be designed for health agents, inspectors, sanitarians, engineers 
and septic system installers. Cooperation of the Cape Cod Community 
College continuing education program should be pursued. Every effort 
should be made to ensure attendance, such as local boards of health paying 
fees for all of their health agents and inspectors. 

The Barnstable Health Department presently requires installers to pass an 
exam on local and state health regulations to qualify for a license to 
operate in the town. A model examination should be developed in the 208 
implementation program for use by all towns in licensing installers, pos- 
sibly as a part of the training course described above. 

Local Actions are divided into the following two phases: actions to be 
taken immediately and future actions. 

IMMEDIATE ACTION 

1. Towns should employ a qualified health agent 

The Massachusetts code for subsurface disposal, Title 5, provides 
specific design criteria for on-site systems. As with most technical 
codes, however, the enforcing agent must have knowledge of the tech- 
nical basis for the code and training in field techniques to implement 
the code effectively. This is particularly true in the soils observa- 
tion tests, where incorrect analysis of the soils can result in the 
installation systems in unsuitable locations. 

It is recommended that all Cape Cod communities employ health agents 
who are registered sanitarians, and who have training and experience 
in soils sciences and subsurface disposal systems management. Acting 
health agents and their assistants who do not have special training in 
Title 5 enforcement should attend a training program sponsored by the 
county and DEQE. (See regional recommendations.) 

The DEQE has attempted to provide for expert design and installation by 
requiring that a registered engineer or sanitarian oversee soil tests 
and design on-site systems. While this certainly represents an improve- 
ment over the previous lack of requirements, it is not a substitute for 
enforcement by a professional health agent. It cannot be assumed that 
an engineer's or sanitarian's stamp guarantees that the system is in 
compliance with Title 5, since neither sanitarians nor engineers neces- 
sarily have training in soils sciences and sewage treatment techniques. 
It must also be remembered that the engineer or sanitarian designing a 
system for a permit applicant does not represent the same interests as 
the town board of health. 

It has been reported by professionals in the field that it is not un- 
common to have to reject engineers' plans because they do not comply 
with the Code. A health agent lacking professional credentials could 
be in a difficult position to reject a professional's design under 
such circumstances. 

2-48 



A qualified health agent is particularly important in activities de- 
signed to identify and correct failing systems. A major activity of 
the health agent under the 20 8- re commended on-site system management 
program is the inventory and upgrading of failing on-site systems. 

Title 5 provides no guidance to health boards in determining what re- 
pairs are effective or necessary in correcting system failures. In 
many cases limited space or soil constraints prevent the design of a 
new system which could comply with all of the requirements of Title 
5. It is the judgment of the health agent which requirements should 
be waived to develop the optimum system for the site. This requires, 
once again, knowledge of the technical reasons for the code require- 
ments. The matter cannot be left up to the installer if obvious con- 
flicts of interest are to be avoided. 

Determining that a system has failed is, in itself, a job for a quali- 
fied agent if he is to have success in avoiding, or winning, a court 
challenge. This is particularly true in the cases of marginally 
operational systems which may be contributing to pollution of surface 
waters . 

It has been suggested that the smaller towns on the Cape continue to 
rely on the assistance of the County sanitarians for Title 5 enforce- 
ment. The County sanitarians provide technical assistance and health 
services to Cape Cod towns in a broad range of health fields. 

The County staff are on call to all Cape Cod towns and are of consid- 
erable assistance to the smaller towns who do not have professional 
health agents. Under this arrangement, however, the County would be 
unable to make a commitment to a single town to provide the extensive 
work recommended in the 208 on-site system management prog-am. 

It is estimated that administration of the recommended management program 
would require a minimum of half-time effort of a professional agent in 
the smaller towns, and that the full-time health agent would need three 
or four assistants in larger towns. A health agent's salary should run 
from $13,000 to $22,000 depending upon background and experience. 

Small towns who are willing to share a professional health agent may par- 
ticipate in a program through the Mass. Dept. of Public Health. The 
program pays a portion of the agent's salary over the first five years, 
beginning at 75% and declining to 20% on the fifth year. It is designed 
to encourage towns to expand their health services, especially in the 
areas of housing and sanitation code enforcement, and preventive medical 
services. The small lower Cape towns of Orleans through Truro should 
consider joining this program. 

2. Towns should require septage haulers to report locations of systems 
pumped 

The first step in identifying failing systems is to analyze septage 
pumping information. The board of health licenses septage haulers to 
operate in a town under Section 31A of Chapter 111. The board of health 



2-49 



should issue new regulations citing this authority, requiring septage 
haulers to report the following information. Penalty for failure would 
be punishable by a fine and/or suspension of license. 

Name of Owner 

Address 

Date 



Volume Pumped 

Type of System 

Repairs Effected 
Signature of Operator 



The simplest approach seems to be to provide (or sell) tickets to septage 
haulers, to be turned in at the disposal site. Cost of tickets should 
cover operation and maintenance of the disposal system (as provided under 
Section 31D of 111A) including sufficient manpower to administer and moni- 
tor the reporting system. (see section on user charges) During summer 
months, particularly, this may require 24-hour staffing at the disposal 
site. A triplicate ticket system, such as is used for oil deliveries, 
would provide one copy for the homeowner, one to be turned in at the 
disposal site, and a third mailed in a monthly report to the board of 
health. 

This information should then be filed by the board of health under the 
homeowner's name or street address. When the frequency of pumping in- 
dicates that a system has failed, the board of health should send a 
notice to the owner and septage hauler ordering that no further service 
should be performed on the system without first calling the board of 
health for an inspection. Upon inspection of the system the health 
agent should order the homeowner to make the necessary repairs, under 
the authority of S. 2.19 of Title 5. 

3. Boards of health should reorganize their files to develop an 
inventory of on-site systems 

A second step toward identifying substandard systems is to utilize 
information available from disposal permits. All permits issued since 
the revision of Article XI in 1966 should contain at least some useful 
information on the type and size of the system in use. Permits issued 
since the revision of Title 5 in 1977 should include detailed plot plans. 
Ideally, a file of households should be set up, either by homeowner's 
name or by street address. All systems not in this file should be 
assumed to be some form of cesspools. The files should be used for 
reference where failures are reported, and should gradually be expanded 
to include a complete inventory of subsurface disposal systems in use. 
The Town of Lakeville, Ma. utilized CETA employees to perform this fil- 
ing inventory. 

4. Towns should conduct a sanitary survey in problem areas . 

It is recommended that the towns conduct a sanitary survey in all 
Category 1 and Category 2 problem areas delineated by the 208 program. 
Additional problem areas may be selected on the basis of ground and 
surface water quality monitoring results. A sanitary survey can be 



2-50 



performed by the health agent or an engineering consultant. In such a 
survey, an inventory of all systems, including their type, size, age and 
condition is made on the basis of disposal permits, homeowner interviews, 
"windshield surveys" and field inspections of systems where indicators 
of potential failures are evident. Dye tests are performed where illegal 
discharges to storm drains or surface waters are suspected. An evalua- 
tion of soil and water table conditions is made to determine whether 
on site systems can be made to function properly or a sewered solution is 
necessary. While the sanitary survey can be costly and time-consuming, 
it is the only means of evaluating the feasibility of rehabilitating 
systems and determining sewer needs. Unless such a survey is made a 
large category of marginally-operating systems which are causing poten- 
tial public health problems or polluting ground and surface waters would 
go undetected. Sanitary surveys are 75% fundable under Step 1 facilities 
planning projects. 

5. Towns should require failing substandard systems to be upgraded 
to septic tank systems 

The board of health has the authority to require the abatement of nuis- 
ances, "sources of filth and causes of sickness .. .which may in its opinion 
be injurious to the public health," under Chapter 111, S. 122. The board 
of health's authority to order a homeowner to upgrade a failed system is 
stated in Section 2.19 of Title 5 which provides that "the owner ... shall 
keep sewers and disposal systems in proper operating condition and shall 
have such works cleaned or repaired at such time as ordered by the board 
of health." Boards of health are encouraged to invoke their authority 
against substandard systems which have failed more than once, as suggested 
under "require septage haulers to report failing systems serviced." Sys- 
tems which can be shown through dye tests to be discharging to a surface 
water body should also be required to be upgraded. 

A number of comments have raised concern over the strength of the 
board's authority to require upgrading. More work needs to be done to 
determine the limits of the authority carried by the health regulations 
and the general laws cited, and to determine needs for revised legisla- 
tion. Technical assistance in this field will be provided to the towns 
by CCPEDC (see regional recommendations below) . The 
establishment of legally defensible criteria for determining that a 
system has failed should be part of this implementation project. (see 
regional and state actions) Cost of upgrading and replacing on-site 
systems can range from $7S0 to several thousand dollars. See draft 
Chapter 4 for detailed cost discussions. 

6. Boards of health should not allow rehabilitation or replacement of 
cesspools, and should not allow the use of chemical scouring agents 
for rehabilitation of cesspools or leach pits . 

In issuing permits for repairs, boards of health should require mechan- 
ical repairs and replacement of systems in conformance with Title 5. 
There should be no variance to this policy. 



2-51 



7. Towns should require upgrading of substandard systems prior to 
issuance of building permits for expansion of living space or con- 
version of seasonal dwellings 

The board of health should adopt a special health regulation requiring 
that an applicant for a building permit demonstrate that septic system 
capacity conforming to Title 5 is available to serve the new living 
area or new year-round use. This regulation would reinforce the pro- 
visions of Section 2.7 of Title 5. 

A Lakeville, Ma. health regulation making these requirements was recent- 
ly overturned by the District Court. The decision was not based on the 
merits of the specific Lakeville regulation, however, and the Mass. 
Attorney General has joined in an appeal. Progress of this suit should 
be closely watched, since denial of a building permit or occupancy permit 
is the most effective mechanism available for enforcement of sanitary 
regulations . 

Special zoning districts should be considered to control conversion of 
high-density for areas to year-round residential uses (see "Land Use 
Controls" section) . 

8. Towns should assist low income residents -in financing upgrading 
of systems 

It has been reported that in many cases failures of substandard systems 
coincide with low income areas. Enforcement of health regulations in 
those areas could place an unreasonable burden on the homeowners or ten- 
ants. There are, however, several sources of funds which can be used 
for these purposes. These include federal grants and loan programs, the 
betterment act and formation of water pollution abatement districts. 
Towns should take an active role in identifying needs and applying for 
such funds. Assistance in further exploring these funding routes should 
be provided by CCPEDC (see regional recommendations) . 

9. Towns should educate homeowners on proper operation and maintenance 
of septic tank systems 

As part of the on-site system management program, the board of health 
should distribute to all homeowners information on the proper use and 
maintenance of on-site waste disposal systems. This could be accom- 
plished by mailing an informational pamphlet to all taxpayers, followed 
by general distribution by the board of health, septage haulers, real 
estate agencies and conservation organizations, to new homeowners and 
visitors . 

A useful pamphlet has been developed by the Southeast Regional Planning 
and Economic Development District. A pamphlet directed to particular 
problems on Cape Cod should be developed as part of the ongoing 208 
program (see regional recommendations) . A brief sample of the content 
of such a brochure is as shown on the next page. 



2-52 



DO'S AND DON'TS OF SEPTIC SYSTEM USE 

A septic tank system is a biological treatment system which retains 
solids and returns liquid wastes to the ground through a percolation 
system. In the septic tank, microbial action breaks down the solids 
and reduces their volume. The remaining sludge, or septage, must be 
removed from the tank periodically. If this is not done, solids will 
overflow into the percolation system and clog it. The system then will 
back up into the house, or flow out onto the ground, necessitating 
costly repairs or replacement of the system. 

The helpful bacteria in the septic tank must not be upset by the addition 
of chemicals into the system, nor should it be overloaded with garbage 
and paper wastes. The following DO's and DON'TS should be observed to 
prevent failure of your septic tank system. 



DO 



DON'T 



■Have a licensed septage hauler inspect 
your system regularly and pump it out 
when the septic tank is more than 1/3 
full of sludge (every 2 to 4 years) 



■Don't use caustic drain 
chemicals, spot removers, 
or large amounts of 
laundry bleach 



-Fix leaky faucets and toilets promptly 

-Avoid extreme peak flows by spacing out 
laundry loads, bathing and dishwashing 

-Use water conservation devices (toilet 
tank modifications, faucet aerators, 
water conservation showerheads) 

-Investigate promptly indications of 
pot ential failure. These include: 

*Grass especially green, or snow 
melted over leach facility 



--Don't dispose of grease, 
oils, paints, pesticides 
down the drain 

--Don't use a garbage grinder 

--Don't dispose of paper 
diapers or other sanitary 
products 

--Don't put chemicals into 
the cesspool or leach pit 
for the purpose of main- 
taining or de-clogging it 



*Standing water in vicinity of leach 
facility 

*Black or reddish mud around leach 
area 



■Don't put large shrubs or 
trees, buildings, drive- 
ways or parking lots on 
top of waste lines or sep- 
tic tank systems 



r Slow flushing toilets 
: Sewage odor in yard 



2-53 



10. Boards of health should adopt subsurface disposal regulations 
more string ent than Title 5. 

Because of the very porous nature of much of the soil on Cape Cod, 
boards of health are encouraged to pass special regulations requiring 
that: 

--leach facilities shall be set back 100' from surface waters, 
or the maximum distance possible on lots with inadequate 
depth, (but in no case less than 50'). 

--leach facilities shall be set back the maximum feasible dis- 
tance from private wells but in no case less than 100' . 

The towns of Chatham and Barnstable, which presently have septage 
treatment facilities should adopt health regulations requiring that: 

--septic tanks shall be cleaned at intervals of once every (two, 
three) years for year-round homes and once every four years 
for seasonal homes. 

Since percolation tests are enfluenced by seasonal changes in precipi- 
tation and related soil saturation, boards of health are encouraged to 
issue a regulation providing that: 

--where in the judgement of the agent of the board of health, soils 
contain significant amounts of clay or fines, the agent may 
require an applicant for a subsurface disposal permit to repeat 
percolation tests between the months of November- -June prior to 
issuance of the permit. 

LOCAL ACTION: FUTURE PHASES 

1. A mandatory septic system maintenance program should be initiated 

Maintenance pumping, if generally practiced, could create sizeable 
septage flows. It is essential that towns regulate maintenance pumping 
in some way so that excessive seasonal peak flows can be avoided. When 
construction of septage treatment facilities is planned, towns should 
select a pumping schedule to serve the needs of its own population, 
using the following general criteria: 

YEAR-ROUND HOUSES 

Systems of less than 1000 gal. septic tank capacity with no 
garbage grinder; or systems less than 1500 gal, with a garbage 
grinder should be pumped every two years. 

OTHER YEAR-ROUND USES 

Should be pumped every three years 

SEASONAL USES 

Should be pumped every four years 

2-54 



Various pumping management programs are explored in the draft plan (see pp. 
4-90 to 4-92) . The ongoing 208 planning personnel should assist towns 
in selecting and setting up the administrative program, including drafting 
model health regulations, contracts, etc. 

2. Towns should adopt health regulations more stringent than Title 5 

Various proposals for controlling the timing of soils and water table tests 
have been explored for other 208 planning areas. DEQE has contracted 
with USGS to develop a formula for adjusting water table elevations 
made any time of year to the seasonal high. Towns should begin to 
employ this method as soon as it is available. 

Model health regulations specifically designed to implement the 208 
recommendations will be drafted on the basis of experience in the field 
during the demonstration on-site system management project. 



2-55 





S ©Till irem ^.uaSuTj:q.s 












































9.10111 suoiaBinSsjc u;:).XB9i[ }dopv 


OQ 


(fl uuu OQ 


cq oa oa oa 


CJ CJ CJ CJ Q CQ OQ 


















Suiduind JBxnSaa: sjinbay 


DQ 


OQ CJ CJ CJ CQ 


oa oa oa cq 


CQ CJ CJ CQ CJ 03 CQ 


! 




asn uiaisAs 










! 




oildas uo sJouMoauioq gauonpg 


oa 


CQ CJ U CJ OQ 


oa oa oa oa 


CJ CJ CJ OQ CJ CQ CC 














i 




sojcnxiBj jo guipBjSdn ajinbsy 


u 


OQ U CJ CJ < 


CO CQ CQ oa 


CQ CJ CJ CQ CJ 03 03 


| 




sq.uo§B 
in.Ii29i[ pGijiXBnb 9j:Tq/9j:inb9y 


u 


U U U CJ CQ 


oa u oa cq 


03 CJ CJ CJ CJ CQ CJ 












. 


| 


IN3WHDVNVW W3ISAS HIIS-NO 






- 




s,2 Xjco§9q.B3 jloCbui ut 














" " 


OQ 


oq u cj u oa 


CQ CQ CQ CQ 


CJ CJ CJ CQ CJ CQ CQ 






SSAX^VUXQIIV P9ZTXB.H1190 9Q 














^u9iuq.B9j:i. p9jJ9j9a:d Suiasodiuoo 


< 


< u oa < cj 


< u < oa 


CQ CJ CJ OQ 03 CQ CQ 






}U9iiq.B9.i} gjTnbGJ 














/SUOO§BX UITJ9T.UI M9U ON 


OQ 


oa cj cq cq cj . 


< u < u 


03 CJ CJ 03 CQ Q CJ 


















A^xijOTej 9§Bq.d9s gzixBuoiggy 


CQ 


oa cj oa oq cj 


oa u ffltfl 


CJ CJ CJ CQ 03 03 03 




SV3UV (I3tf3M3S-N0N 


















SXX3M Xxddns }U9ip-ej:3dn/.iB9u 
poainbaj q.u9ui^B0j:q. pgoueApy 


< 


cj u CJ cj cj 


< cq u Q 


OQ CJ CJ CQ 03 Q Q 


















p 9.1.191 9jd uoTiB2TJ.iT-Ae.ids 


< 


u cj cq oa oa 


CQ CQ CQ U 


03 CJ CQ CO CJ Q Q 






pojjajoad x'Bsodsip pueq 


CQ 


CO u cj CO < 


cq oa cj cq 


CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ 


■ 




uiaxqojd 


U 


CQ u cj u cj 


u u cj oa 


CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ 03 OQ 






§UT}STX9 01 2UT.I9M9S ^TlHTq 














SB9J:B 90TAJ9S 
















03 


CQ U CJ Q CQ 


CQ Q oa Q 


CQ CJ CO OQ CJ Q O 






pgsodojd ut S.I9M9S q.ona:q.suo3 








1 1 ■« 




SIDHfOHd NOIlDnHlSNOD U3M3S 










SN0IJLV(IN3WW0D3y 




CO 
<u 

03 


T7T 
ty 
+J 
fcl— f 
CO 


ty 














to 

0) 












to 

+-> 

to 

c 






+* 




<u 


,— I 


fH 












• H 












o 






C T 




> 


rt 


,o 














■M 
















5» 10 




•H 


o 


4-( 














C 




c 








<4-H 

o 






m ® o o 




•H 


60 


•s 














3 




o 


o 




to 










I/) 


o 


co 














*-> 




•H 


to 




■♦-> 


0) 








c 


1— I 


T3 








o 






U 




4-> 


03 




to 


J-H 






15 CD fn f-i 
E <r .P > . 




<u 


o 


c 








o 






o 


+-> 


03 


O X 




O 


03 






CO 




I/) 


o5 


nj 








c 




c 


Oh 


s 


O 


u +-> 




O 


-C 






E-. 






x: 


i— t 






<D 


03 




o 


CU 


(U 


•H 


O fH 


-3 




to 






tal li 
Mai 

an f 
'f en 

ment 


CJ 

< 




r— 1 


o 
f-l 


4-> 
0) 






O 

03 


03 




•H 


o 


X 


•H 


■H 3h 


C 
03 


a 
o 


o 










1— 1 
o3 


o3 


2 


c 




tM 
(-1 






03 

> 


CO 


xi 
o 


o 

^-1 


to 

Vh 


o 

ty Jh 


i — 1 


■ - 
> 


•H 








I— i 


o 


4-> 


^ 


«v 


o 


X 


3 


■p f- 




U 


E- 


•l-» 


Ch 


o 


3 Oh, 


-o 


M 


-O 








1— I 


c 


rH 


<u 


• H 


•M 


CO 


• H 0) 




<u 


CJ 




E 


> 


i — < 


o 


a 


3 






j 


o 


0) 


aj 


o 


to 


■H 




h-J 4-> 


X 


to 


< 


c 


0) 


•H 


rt -o 


3h 


CO 


Oh 






E g £ -S £ 

c £ 2 £ rt 


< 


o 


6 


o 


aJ 


o 


i— ( 


CO" 


c ^ 


*-> 


c 


o- 


•H 


c 


-a 


> cy 


O 










H 


UJ 


B 


■ H 


Oh 


fn 


rt r-, 




a 5 


■ H 


o 


s 




3 




Oh 


.— i 


-a 


-o 






z 




o 


Jh 


to 


0) 


d 03 


T3 


3 "3 


i — 1 


o 


I-H 


o 




o 


X o 


o 


0) 


o 






o a) £ 2 _^ 


UJ 


>, 


J-t 


o 






cy +-> 


C 


cy c 


c3 






to 


T3 


•H 


4-> r-l 


> 


m 


N 






£: .2 ^ 5 ^ 




WJ 


• H 


4-> 


c 


■— < 


to 


3 


3 


3 


X 


u 


03 


0) 


E 


>- (1) 


ty 


•h 


• H 






.— /a rt oj 


5j 


o 


> 


to 


a> 


■H 


?H OJ 


O 


^i o 


& 


GC 


f— 1 


0) 


O 


O 


o > 


"O 


E 


e 






LU > w o> E 


o 


r— ( 


■o c 


H 


Oh 


o 


<u o 


?H 


O f-i 




(h 


s: 


u 


3 


c 


ex o 


c 


■ H 


•H 






> 


o 

•H 

oa 


c uj 

-J 


1 


o 

1 


LO 
t 


a3 1 
2: 


CJ 
1 


4-) CJ 

03 l 

2: 


< 


o 

c 

UJ 


o 
z 

o 


o 

c 

»— H 


0) 


o 
o 

UJ 


o a 
a. 


3 
i 


c 

• H 

2 


C 
•H 








z 






















CJ 






















UJ 




















1 


UJ 










i 










2- 


•5( 































s 


9X1II ubiii iu9Sutj:is 




o 


I— 1 


I— 1 


o. 


r-l 


1—1 


o 


o 




+ 


+ 


+ 


+ 


+ 




+ 


+ 


+ 


+ 




3.10111 suoiiBxnSao: i[q.IB9q idopv 












Suxdumd j-BxngsjL ajjnbsy 




O OOOOt-HOO 


1 + + + 


+ 1 + + + + 




asn uig^sXs 
















o ooooooo 


+ + + + 


+ + + + + i 




OT.q.sds uo so;9UMoauioi{ a^BDnpg 








+ 




saanxTBj jo Suxp^JcSdri gjirtbgy 




O <— It- 1 O rH i— 1 O O 


+ + + + 


+ 1 + + + + 




s^usSb 


' 


o ooooooo 


+ + + + 


+ + + + + + 




i{lX B9 M P s TJTT Bn b 3J:ii{/sj:T:nbay 




\ 












■ 




1N3W39VNVW W31SAS 31IS-N0 




\ 


-■ 












s,2 XioSsq.B3 .ioCbiii ut. 




r-t rH i— 1 i— 1 ,— 1 r-l O O 


+ + + + 


+ 1 + + + + 


A 


S9AI^BlLI9q.XB p9ZTXB.I}U9D9Q 












au9Uiq.B9.il p9j.19j9.1d Suiq.soduio3 




o ooooooo 


+ + + + 


+ + + + + + 




^U9U[aB9JCa 9Jiinb9j; 




o ooo*-iooo 


+ + + + 


+ 1 + + + + 




/SUOOS^X UITJCg^UT M9U om 












XlT.XT.912J 9§B:j.d9S 9ZTX"BUOT§9^ 




O O O O "-I O CM CM 


1 + + + 

+ 


+ 1 + + + + 




SV3HV a3HHM3S-N0N 




— , 




sxx SM Xxddns iu9tp-BJ:Sdn/j;-B9U 




O OOOOtHOO 


1 + + 1 


+ 1 + + + + 




p9a:Tnb9j: tj.u9UUB9.i-} pgouBApy 












paaaajaad uox:j.B§T.i.iT.-XB.ids 




o ooooooo 


+ . + + + 


+ 1 + + + + 




p9.i.i9j9.id x^sodsip pireq 




O OOOtHOOO 


+ + + + 


+ 1 + + + + 




ui9xqoa;d 




i—l t— It-HtHt— li— IOO 


+ + + + 


+ + + + + + 




SuiaSIX9 0^ 3UTJL9M9S ITUITq 












SB9.IB 9dtaj:9s 




CM r-H t^3 *— t CM O O O 


+ + + + 


+ 1 + + + + 




pgsodojd ut S.I9M9S aoruusuoo 






+ 


+ 




SIDSfOtfd NOIIDflHISNOD H3M3S 








• 














<D 






•M 






H 


>, 














5 SN0IIV(IN3WW033ti 














3 










03 

a 


o 








>> 






o 




















•H 






on 


I— 1 








o 






v 1 






c 








4-> 






1— ( 

i— I -H 




>> 


c^ 


o 


o 






c 


>• 




CO 








o 








>H 






03 X 


>, 


<-J 


o 


X 


•H 




>, 


*-> 


o 




E- 








•H 








0) 






C -H 


4-> 


•H 




o 


4-> 




o 


on 


c 




U 








4-> 




X 




Pn 






o in 


•H 


1— { 


>> 


0) 


03 




c 


•H 


<D 




< 








rt 




4-> 


(H 


o 








•H TO 


rH 


•H 


E 


4-> 


4-» 




<D 


on 


+-) 




a. 








r-H 




•rH 


a> 


rH 






CO 


+-> a> 


•H 


X3 


o 




c 




4-> 


c 


en 




2 








3 




r-H 


4-J 


ex 






z 


3 M-t 


X 


n3 


c 


cw 


<1> 




tn 


o 


•H 




i-< 








ex 




• H 


o 








o 


4-1 


03 


+-> 


o 


o 


E 




•H 


o 


on 












o 




X 


03 


c 






M 


• H ■-( 


4-> 


c 


o 




a; 


on 


on 




c 




j 








ex 




oJ 


rH 


o 


X 


c 


E- 


+J o3 


D. 


3 


0) 


>> 


— 1 


on 


c 


en 


o 




< 






0) 






1— ( 


rt 




E 


o 


s 


W c 


a> 


o 




4-1 


a 


<u 


o 


<u 


o 




H 




CO 


fj 


c 




•H 


X 


CO 


o 


■ H 


c o 


o 


a 


>> 


• H 


E 


c 


o 


•H 






Z 




H 


cd 


o 




a 


o 


c 


c 


4-J 


UJ 


1— 1 -H 


o 


a 


o 


1— 1 


>H 


a> 


X 


a 


c 




1 




c_> 


rH 


•rH 


oo 


> 




o 


o 


03 


Q 


">v» 4-> 


03 


rt 


c 


•H 




> 


o c 


•H 


03 






< 




4-> 


c 


rt 


X 


•H 


4~> 


4-> 


t— 1 


r-* 3 






0) 




CH 


•H 


C o3 


r-H 


r-H 




Z 




a, 


X 


al 


•H 




4-> 


4-> 


3 


rH 


CO 


a) 4-> 


o 


o 


•H 


o3 o3 


o 


+-> 


(U r-H 


o 


ex 




o 




2 


4-> 


(h 


on 


oO 


• H 


o 


03 


o 


z 


a .h 


•H 


>H 


u 


O .-i 




o 


*-" a. 


ex 






oi 




►— i 


a> 2 


3 


3 


c 


c 


•H 




ex, 


o 


• H 4-> 


r-H 


■— ( 


•H 


•H -H 


cu 


a> 


on 




UJ 




>— i 






10 o 


4-> 


o 


•rH 


3 


rH 


r-H 


on 


CJ 


4-j on 


X 


J=> 


<+J 


C 03 


en 


l+H 


•h s; 


ex 


35 




> 




j 


~3 Jh 


a3 


o 


Wi 


e 


4-> 


03 


c 




■i-l c 


3 


3 


Mh 


x: > 


03 


Ct-, 


on M 


CO 


UJ 




z 




< 


u 


co 


U- 


3 


Es 


(/) 


o 


03 


cc: 


^-< 1— 1 


c 


ex, 


eg 


u < 


UJ 


UJ 


c u 


o 


CO 




Hi 


i— i 


-a i 


1 


1 


o 


o 


o 


o 


In 


UJ 


O I 


1 


1 


1 


CD 1 


1 


1 


O I 


1 


1 






c_> 

O 








X 


CJ 


o£ 


J 


H 


i 


Ou 








H 






u 










CO 


_J 


I 














o 




































2- 


57 







































<u 








> 








•H 








■p 


Sh 






03 


w 




<u 


oo 


J= 




> 


a> 


+J 




•H 


z 


•H 




4-> 




rU 




ca 


>N 






ao 


rH 


on 




<D 


(U 


03 




z 


> 


H3 








QJ 




1 


1 


4-> 






1 


03 








3 








1— ( 








OS 








> 








a> 








<u 








5h 








03 








on 


cy 






c 


> 






o 


— 1 






•rH 


+-> 


CJ 




4-> 


03 


> 




03 


DO 


•H 




rH 


(U 


•*-J 




a> 


c 


■H 




"3 




on 


a; 


•H 


rH 


o 


> 


(/3 


o 


ex 


•rH 


c 






4-> 


o 


CD 


X 


•H 


o 


> 


$H 


on 




•H 


a) 


o 


fW 


4-J 


> 


ex 


<1> 


•H 






X 


on 






4-> 


o 


+ 




o 


ex 


+ 


+ 



<3J 




GO 




c 




03 




X 




o 


+-> 




(J 


<4H 


o3 


o 


o 




<U E 


o 


4-> 1— ( 


-o 


03 


3 


rH rH 


4-J 


<u o 


•H 


T3 T-> 


c 


O 03 


DO 


2 s 


03 




E 






CM tn 


X 




X) 




-3 




<L> 




4-> 




03 




3 




■-H 




03 




> 




0) 




1) 




rH 




03 


4-J 




a 


en 


03 


+-> 


ex 


o 


4-- E 


03 


U ►—( 


ex 


03 


E 


ex 4-> 


•rH 


E X 




r-H ^0 


r-H 


■rH 


03 


o — 


•H 


Z CT 


o 




o 




co 


O i 



Land Use Controls 



Human use of the land -- for homes, businesses, industries, agricul- 
tural and recreational purposes -- creates water quality problems. 
The control of these human sources of pollution can be accomplished 
through a number of different approaches. Many of these control mech- 
anisms are discussed and recommended in other sections of this final 
plan. Here, the use of direct land use and growth control measures 
is suggested. 

As discussed in the draft plan, the major pollution sources of con- 
cern on Cape Cod are non-point sources of pollution. Population 
growth generally increases the intensity of pollution and proliferates 
the pollution sources. The 208 planning program has projected popu- 
lation growth to 1995 (see Table 5.1 of the draft plan). This pop- 
ulation growth can also be projected to take place in a scattered 
pattern and will increasingly affect inland areas of the Cape where 
most public wells are located. Additional growth around ponds and 
along the shore can also be expected. The increase of non-point 
sources of pollution due to population growth is the major water 
quality problem on Cape Cod. 

To a certain extent non-point sources can be controlled using abate- 
ment measures discussed in the sections, "Non-Point Source 
Controls" and "Wastewater Management." Perhaps the most effective 
control is through preventive land use measures. Where certain human 
uses will be particularly harmful to water resources, these activities 
are either eliminated or minimized. 

Such an approach involves managing the pattern or location of popula- 
tion growth to avoid areas critical to water resources. Population 
growth rate can also be managed to better pace the public service 
needs of the growing population. 

Two specific and often related land use concerns are also addressed in 
this section, managing seasonal areas which can often be present or po- 
tential wastewater management problem areas and controlling the impacts 
of non-point source pollution on pond'; 



2-58 



Protecting Critical Water Resources 

Land use measures can be used to protect water quality in three main 
ways, 1) by actually preventing the harmful land use from taking place, 
2) by allowing the land use to take place in an area that will have a 
minimal effect on critical water resources, or 3) by modifying the land 
use to minimize its impact on water resources. All three of these ap- 
proaches are integrated, to some degree, in the 208 land use recom- 
mendations . 

The main thrust of the recommendations rests on controlling major non- 
point source impacts on critical water resources. Certain areas have 
been selected by the 208 program as being of special concern to water 
quality and are categorized as "Water Resource Protection Areas." 
These areas include: 

1. Recharge areas of present and future municipal well sites 

2. Areas relying on private wells for water supply 

3. Areas around and upgradient of great ponds 

4. Areas upgradient of coastal embayments 

Additional areas of concern are flood plains and wetlands. However, it 
is believed that adequate protections for these areas are available 
under the Federal Flood Insurance Program, the state Wetlands Act, the 
Coastal and Inland Wetlands Restrictions Programs (the use of the Inland 
Restrictions Program for pond protection is suggested in the recommenda- 
tions) and through local bylaw adoption. Towns may also choose to 
adopt these recommendations for all ponds, not just those classified as 
great ponds (10 acres or more) . 

The "Water Resource Protection Area" recommendations are aimed at elimi- 
nating major non-point sources (landfills, junkyards, etc.), reducing 
the number of non-point sources (lowering density of use) and modifying 
harmful land uses (limiting impervious areas, maintaining vegetative buf- 
fers, etc.) in the vicinity of critical water resources. Through these 
measures it is expected that the impacts of non-point sources in these 
areas will be minimized and the quality and quantity of recharge will be 
maintained at a reasonable level. 

The first step in protecting critical water resource areas is to define 
the boundaries of the area to be protected. While the 208 draft plan 
provides preliminary guidelines for each category of critical water re- 
source, this information must be refined to actually delineate protec- 
tion areas. 

EPA has provided funds to CCPEDC to assist the towns in defining the 
areas that should be protected by Watershed Protection Districts during 
the coming year. As part of this program, CCPEDC staff will work speci- 
fically with the planning board, water commission and conservation 
commission. The water commissioners will provide information on present 
well capacities and pumping practices. They will also be asked to indi- 
cate all future water supply development plans including any areas they 
hope to develop as future well sites. With the assistance of the plan- 
ning board and conservation commission, the present land uses and zoning 



2-59 



in these areas will be examined. It is extremely helpful if the town 
has an accurate and up-to-date land use map. In cases where such a 
map is not available a detailed inventory of land uses within the area 
must be conducted. The inventory is conducted to assess the need for 
zoning changes to modify the density in certain areas to meet the over- 
all recommended density for the entire area. 

The actual definition of the Watershed Protection District boundaries 
should be guided by the criteria presented in the 208 plan and by the 
208 formula for delineating the recharge areas of public wells. Recent 
experience in assisting towns in this task indicates that it is most 
important that the delineation of these protection areas consider cer- 
tain natural and manmade boundaries. The accommodation of existing 
conditions while adhering to the major criteria for these areas can best 
be determined with the assistance of the 208 planning staff. 

Zoning Changes vs. Land Acquisition 

In certain towns the possibility of meeting the overall density recom- 
mendations for the Watershed Protection Districts can only be accomplished 
through land acquisition. Development around the wells, in such areas, 
is particularly dense and many of the remaining areas have been sub- 
divided for development. 

In other towns zoning changes may help to achieve the overall density 
but acquisition would also be helpful to insuring the overall density 
recommendation is followed. Further, some towns may view land ac- 
quisition as a more equitable approach than a major zoning change 
that may adversely affect a small group of landowners. 

In all towns, land acquisition to protect watershed areas should be 
a priority. Conservation commissions should include the acquisition 
of watershed areas in their open space and recreation plans. By allow- 
ing passive recreation in these areas (walking, bicycling, canoeing, 
etc.) the towns will maximize the benefits of public ownership and 
improve the possibility of obtaining BOR or state "Self -Help" funds. 
While land acquisition of watershed areas may seem costly in the short- 
term, the protection of public wells will avoid deterioration of water 
quality in the well that may one day require treatment or relocating 
the wellfield at even greater cost. Watershed protection as part of 
an overall open space and recreation plan for the town also provides 
a valuable means of preserving community character. 

Recommended Controls 

A model Watershed Protection District Bylaw was included in the draft 
plan and is currently being revised by the 208 planning staff. It is 
recommended that the towns work directly with the 208 staff to delineate 
watershed protection areas and to adapt the revised model to their town 
needs. Model bylaws for the other recommended protection areas will al- 
so be developed in the continuing program. However, the protection of 
present and future public wells is considered to be a priority for town 
action. 



2-60 



Watershed Protection Areas 



Criteria 



1. As a minimum, the size of the public water supply protection area 
should be equal to that required to recharge the estimated volume of 
water needed to meet the water supply needs of the 1980 population. 

2. Designation of as much additional area as possible within the pub- 
lic water supply protection areas for future local and regional water 
needs is strongly encouraged. In selecting areas for future water 
supply protection towns should avoid areas downgradient of any existing 
land use with known adverse impacts on water quality, such as dumps, 
road salt, oil and gasoline storage facilities, sewage treatment facil- 
ities, sewage treatment facilities with on-site disposal of secondary 
treated effluent, or on-site septic systems at densities greater than 
one dwelling unit per 20,000 sq. ft. 

3. Designated areas should be located around and upgradient of present 
and future well fields. See Appendix F in draft plan for discussion of 
the formula for preliminary definition of watershed areas. 

Recommended Controls 



1. Single Family Residential: Regulation of on-site sewage disposal 
systems in a public water supply protection area should be based on 
the estimated annual nitrogen loading. The loading should be regu- 
lated so that nitrate levels in the groundwater will remain well below 
10 ppm Nitrate - nitrogen, preferably not higher than 5 ppm. 

Assuming present on-site disposal practices and climatic conditions, 
the annual nitrogen load should not exceed 16 lb/40,000 sq. ft. /year. 
Based on an average nitrogen production rate of 7 lbs/person/year 
and an average year-round occupancy of 3 persons/dwelling, the regu- 
lation of development by nitrogen loading would result in an overall 
density within the entire public water supply area of one single- 
family dwelling unit per 40,000 - 60,000 sq. ft. (see Ch. 3 of draft 
plan for loading formula) . 

Due to the integrating nature of large municipal wells, some sections 
of higher density can be compensated for by including in the protec- 
tion area, sections of lower density. Thus, where previous development 
or new subdivisions built under grandfather clauses result in higher 
densities, efforts should be made to compensate through preserving 
areas of lower density, and limiting new development by acquiring 
conservation areas. 

Where little development or previous subdivision of land has occurred, 
a zoning change to 40,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size may be adequate. 
Where significant higher density exists in some areas, the town should 
consider 60,000 or 80,000 sq. ft. minimum lot sizes. 



2-61 



2. Multi-family Residential and Cluster Development: Regulation 
of multi-family residential and cluster development uses will be based 
on the same assumptions made in regulating single-family residential 
uses. 

a) Cluster development of single-family residential units should be 
permitted, provided the overall density of the watershed protection 
area is not exceeded. 

b) Open space should be retained with natural cover and should be 
distributed in such a way as to afford a buffer between the on-site 
systems and any surface water body or municipal wells. 

c) An exception to the above regulations could be permitted if an ap- 
proved tertiary treatment method is used. Approval shall be given to 
tertiary treatment methods which return water meeting drinking water 
quality standards to the groundwater. 

3. All other permitted uses should have a total nitrate loading of 
not more than 16 lb/40,000 sq. ft./yr. 

4. No variance to Title 5 or local health regulations should be per- 
mitted within this area without a public hearing at which the appli- 
cant bears the burden of proving that a variance will not result in 
any deterioration in groundwater quality. 

5. All runoff from impervious surfaces should be recharged on the 
site. Runoff should be diverted to the maximum length of perimeter 
feasible, with runoff directed toward areas covered with vegetation 
for surface infiltration. Use of dry wells should be discouraged 
and permitted only when surface infiltration is clearly inadequate. 

6. To reduce runoff generation and contamination, the area covered 
by impervious materials (house, driveway, etc.) should not exceed 
10 percent of the lot. It is also recommended that a minimum of 30 
percent of the lot should be retained in natural vegetation. 

7. Prohibited uses in a watershed protection area should include: 

a) landfills and junk yards; 

b) sewage treatment facilities with on-site disposal of secondary- 
treated effluent; 

c) car washes and laundromats; 

d) major transport terminals (bus, air); 

e) subsurface oil and gasoline storage in non-fiberglass containers 
and chemical storage in corrodable containers; 

f) commercial or industrial uses which produce potentially hazardous 
waste, and; 



2-62 



g) uses which require large scale use of chemical pesticides, herbi- 
cides, fertilizers and road salts. 

8. Boards of health should review all plans and applications for com- 
pliance with watershed protection area regulations. 

Private Well Protection Areas 



Criteria 

This district would include all areas of the town not served by pub- 
lic water supply. A developer could be exempted from these require- 
ments only by providing a public water supply. 

Recommended Controls 

1. All controls recommended for protection of watershed protection 
areas should be applied in these areas. Density requirements of one 
dwelling unit/40,000 sq. ft. is sufficient to protect private wells 
from potential pollution of neighboring septic systems. 

2. Plans should be submitted showing all proposed and existing wells 
and septic systems on the parcel and abutting properties. The health 
agent should determine the placement of private wells after considera- 
tion of soil conditions, and expected direction of groundwater flow, and 
to obtain optimal spacing from existing or proposed on-site sewage 
disposal leaching areas including reserve areas. Similarly, the loca- 
tion of existing private wells should be taken into consideration 

when a new on-site sewage disposal system is being sited. 

3. Plans should show all existing, proposed or abandoned dumps or 
landfills within 150 feet of the property line. No well should be 
located within 150 feet of any such dump or landfill. No new dump 
should be located within 150. feet of a private well unless the town 
agrees to provide public water, should such private well be contami- 
nated. 

4. Cluster development should be encouraged only when other re- 
quirements are met. 

5. The board of health should review all plans and applications to 
insure compliance with private well protection area controls. 



2-63 



Great Pond Protection Areas 



Criteria 



Areas around all great ponds should be designated as great pond pro- 
tection areas. At a minimum, a zone extending 300 feet from the pond 
edge should be protected. Due to the potential adverse impacts of 
septic seepage, an additional zone of up to -1,000 feet should be pro- 
tected upgradient of each great pond. 

Recommended Regulations 

1. All regulations recommended for watershed protection areas should 
be applied in these areas. Density requirements of one dwelling unit/ 
40,000 sq. ft. would be adequate for these areas. 

2. No part of a proposed septic system, except the septic tank, but 
including the reserve area, should be within 100 feet of a great pond. 

3. The lowest point of any leaching system installed within a great 
pond protection area should be at least four feet above the mean high 
groundwater level. 

4. A buffer zone of at least 25 feet of natural vegetative cover 
should be maintained along the water's edge. 

5. The conservation commission should review all plans and applica- 
tions for compliance with the great pond protection area regulations. 

Coastal Embayment Protection Areas 

Criteria 

All areas within 1,000 feet of mean high water of a tidal embayment 
or harbor having restricted water flow should be designated as a 
coastal embayment protection area. 

Recommended Controls 



1. The same as for great ponds, with all distances taken from mean 
high water. 

Growth Management 

Managing growth to protect water quality primarily involves managing 
the pattern of growth to avoid areas critical to water resources. 
Implementing the density recommendations for the Water Resource Pro- 
tection areas should help to maintain an acceptable density of devel- 
opment in these areas. According to the population projections de- 
veloped in the 208 program, projected growth to 1995 will not sig- 
nificantly increase the need for sewers. The water quality impacts 
of this projected growth should also be minimal if the towns adopt 
the 208 recommended land use controls. However, the rate of growth 
can have a significant impact on the town's ability to keep up with 



2-64 



the service demands of the growing population. 

The need to expand a water supply system (installing new wells, in- 
creasing the service area) or sewer collection systems, as well as 
other town services such as schools, is determined by the rate of popu- 
lation growth. If that growth takes place rapidly and unexpectedly, 
the town may be faced with sudden expansion needs that will severely 
burden the entire town. Managing the rate of growth can avoid tnese 
problems by allowing the town to meet the service needs of the popu- 
lation through a planned schedule of service expansion. 

It must be emphasized that growth rate management should be one por- 
tion of an overall town growth strategy. The growth rate chosen 
should be sufficient to accommodate the growth rate of recent years. 
The planning board should examine the town's master plan to evaluate 
where they want to encourage growth (sewered areas , areas with town 
water) and where they want growth to be limited (water resource pro- 
tection areas) . Towns should modify their zoning by-laws to reflect 
this growth strategy by modifying densities, by allowing PUD and 
cluster development in appropriate areas, and by applying special 
controls over uses in protection areas through overlay districts. 

While growth rate management is not directly related to protecting 
water quality, it can be a useful tool in managing all of the town's 
resources. A model rate regulation by-law, adopted by the town of 
Bourne, is included in Appendix B (revised version of model pre- 
sented in draft plan) . 

Managing Seasonal Areas 

While the projected population growth over the 208 planning period 
is not expected to significantly increase sewer service area needs, 
certain areas may be susceptible to the development of serious 
wastewater management problems caused by growth. Of particular 
concern are areas that are densely populated and highly seasonal 
where wastewater management problems already exist. While these 
areas may not experience additional housing development since satu- 
ration of these areas is common, growth within the areas will take 
place through the conversion of the seasonal dwellings to year- 
round houses. 

The conversion of a seasonal dwelling to year-round living is a com- 
mon cause of on-site system failure. A cesspool that may function 
adequately for summer use can fail within the first year of constant 
use. To complicate the problem, many seasonal dwellings are located 
on small lots making rehabilitation of the failing system according 
to all Title 5 regulations difficult, if not impossible. Further, 
many such densely populated neighborhoods are located in areas of 
poor soils or high water table. And finally, these seasonal neighbor- 
hoods are often located near water amenities, on ponds or near the 

shore. The impact of the density and failing systems of these areas 
is of serious concern to water quality, both the quality of the nearby 
water body and also groundwater quality in the area. 



2-65 



The Mass. Department of Community Affairs conducted a study of sea- 
sonal neighborhoods in Lakeville in 1977. One of the results of this 
study was the recommendation that the town improve its control of 
seasonal areas through the zoning bylaw. The town can create 
an overlay district that would control conversion of a seasonal to a 
year-round residence and the enlargement or alteration of both con- 
forming and non-conforming year-round and seasonal residences (DCA, 
1977) . The creation of such a special district focuses attention on 
the conversion problem in the area and allows the town to apply con- 
trols to the area as a whole. 

Creating such an overlay district for seasonal areas is also recom- 
mended by the 208 plan and it is suggested that these areas be called 
"Seasonal Residential Districts." The first step in creating these 
districts is to establish their boundaries based on existing physical 
characteristics of the land and present lotting arrangements. 

For those towns that do not presently distinguish between seasonal 
and year-round housing units in their zoning by-laws, definitions should 
be included that would clarify the distinction between these two types 
of residential use. The DCA study suggests that the Harvard, Mass. 
zoning by-law that controls seasonal conversions can be adopted by 
other towns with these problem areas. The Harvard by-law is as follows: 

"CONVERSION OF SEASONAL RESIDENCE. Conversion of a lawful 
existing seasonal residence for use as a permitted year- 
round residence and for which the lot is not conforming to 
the lot size standards of the By-Law is subject to the grant 
of a special permit by the Board of Appeals. Any application 
for such permit shall be referred to the Board of Health and 
to the Planning Board for reports thereon. 

A special permit shall be granted only if: 

a. the Minimum Standards of Fitness for Human Habitation 
and Minimum Requirements for the Disposal of Sanitary 
Sewage in Unsewered Areas, (Article 2 of the State Sani- 
tary Code and Title V of the State Environmental Code 
respectively) , sewage disposal setback requirements of 
this By-Law, and the rules and regulations of the Board 
of Health are met; and 

b. the Board of Appeals finds that similar such conversion 
of all seasonal residences in the general area having 
lots similar (or less limited) in lot size and land and 
soil type characteristics would not result in substan- 
tial danger of contamination of the ground water supply 
or of any pond or stream. In making such finding, the 
Board shall consider the ability of the soil to absorb 
expected quantities of sewage disposal effluent, the de- 
gree of filtration of effluent before entering this 
ground water supply, and other characteristics of the 
land and soil types." 



2-66 



Pond Management 

Pond eutrophication is a serious water quality problem affecting a 
number of Cape ponds as discussed in the draft plan. There are a num- 
ber of corrective and preventive eutrophication control techniques. 
The most effective long-term control technique is managing land uses 
around and upgradient of the pond. Such controls can be accomplished 
by towns adopting overlay districts that would control the uses in 
these areas as recommended for the Great Pond Protection Areas. Zoning 
changes that would allow a density of one dwelling unit per acre in 
these areas are also recommended in this plan. 

In addition, erosion and sedimentation controls should be strengthened 
through changes in the subdivision regulations, and in requiring ero- 
sion control plans. Storm drains should not be allowed to discharge to 
ponds as recommended in the "Storm Water Runoff" section. Conservation 
commissions should investigate drains that are suspected pollution sources 
If the storm drain is causing a pollution problem, the conservation com- 
mission should order the removal of the storm drain with their authority 
under the Wetlands Protection Act. 

Once a pond has eutrophication problems there are certain in-lake restor- 
ation techniques that can be utilized. Many of these techniques, however, 
are costly and, to be effective on a long term basis, should be combined 
with land use controls. It is particularly important, as well, that a 
thorough ecological analysis of the pond be conducted, including a nutri- 
ent balance and benthic studies, prior to selecting a control technique. 
Pond studies can also be costly. 

Funding assistance to conduct a pond study is limited. DWPC conducts a 
limited number of intensive pond studies as part of the Lake Classifica- 
tion Program each year. CCPEDC assisted the town of Mashpee in obtaining 
such a study for John's Pond in the coming year. In general, intensive 
pond studies must be carried out with town funds. It is the recommenda- 
tion of the 208 plan that all pond studies conducted by towns be coordi- 
nated with the 208 program and that they include all of the water quality 
tests utilized in the State Lakes Classification Program and those re- 
quired by the Federal Lake Restoration Program. 

There are a number of state and federal programs that provide funding 
or assistance to towns in implementing a pond management program. The 
Federal Lake Restoration Program authorized under Section 314 of the 
Clean Waters Act will provide 50% funding to help develop or demonstrate 
new or improved methods for the prevention, removal, reduction and elim- 
ination of pollution in lakes. The program stresses restricting the 
input of nutrients into the pond but for particularly severe problems 
will also assist with in-lake treatment. To be eligible, a pond must be 
publicly-owned and have been classified under the State Lakes Classifi- 
cation Program. The applicant must demonstrate that the restoration 
project will provide long-term improvement and benefits for the general 
public. 



2-67 



Pond management can also be addressed through a comprehensive town-wide 
201 facilities plan. Water quality problems of ponds in the town should 
be examined in a 201 study to determine what structural or non -structural 
solutions could be implemented to correct the problem. Under the 201 
program, funds for structural solutions such as sewering or upgrading 
septic systems around the pond may be available in the construction 
phases of the 201 plan. Section 314 funds specifically are not avail- 
able ^or examining or implementing control measures that can be accomp- 
lished with 201 funds. 

The state also provides assistance for lake management, specifically 
in- lake management, through the Aquatic Nuisance Control Program con- 
ducted by DEQE under Ch. 722 of the Acts of 1969. DEQE directly car- 
ries out some control projects and acts as a licensing and permitting 
agency for work supported by local governments and private groups. 
At present, aquatic vegetation control efforts by DEQE only involve 
the application of herbicides. DEQE is also examining other aquatic 
nuisance control techniques for possible inclusion in the state program. 

There are two major problems in implementing comprehensive pond manage- 
ment in Massachusetts, one is the lack of funds for studying pond prob- 
lems and implementing control techniques, the other is the lack of 
coordination between state and federal programs that could be used for 
these purposes. There is little guidance available for towns faced 
with a pond problem, on how to approach the problem, what types of 
water quality studies may be necessary, and what management techniques 
would be most appropriate to solve the problem. Towns are left with the 
prospect of spending considerable funds on private consulting firms 
in highly technical areas without any assurance that the sampling ap- 
proach or control technique recommended is adequate to meet the prob- 
lem. 

It is the basic recommendation of the 208 program that a major effort 
to coordinate agencies involved in pond management be made by a single 
lead agency to develop approved sampling approaches and study techniques, 
and to set guidelines for the selection of control techniques based on 
the information developed through the water quality study of the pond 
problem. It is suggested that the Executive Office of Environmental 
Affairs should consider naming DWPC as the lead agency in this effort. 



The following recommendations are intended to encourage the use of land 
use controls to improve water quality management: 

FEDERAL ACTION 

1. BOR funds should be provided, as a priority to acquire land, for the 
protection of watershed areas of public water supplies. Additional funds 
for this purpose should be made available. 



2-68 



2. EPA should consult with the 208 planning staff in evaluating appli- 
cations under the Lake Restoration Program. 



STATE ACTION 

1. DEQE Water Supply Division should encourage water utilities to imple- 
ment the 208 land use recommendations for watershed protection when they 
request approval for the installation of a new well or to increase the 
capacity of an existing well. 

2. State Self-He lp funds should be provided to towns to assist in ac- 
quiring land for watershed protection. The use of these funds for 
watershed protection should be given a high priority and DEM should 
consult with the 208 staff in evaluating all such requests. 

3. DEM should establish performance regulations under the state Inland 
Wetlands Restrictions Program that will assist towns in controlling land 
uses affecting water quality around ponds and other inland wetlands. 

4. EOEA should designate DWPC as the lead agency to examine present 
federal and state pond management programs and to coordinate these pro- 
grams to maximize their effectiveness in implementing a comprehensive 
pond management program in the state. DWPC should also review all appli- 
cations for pond management funds in coordination with the 208 program, 
as part of this function. 

5. DWPC should consult with the 208 planning staff in setting priorities 
for testing ponds under the Lake Classification Program. 



REGIONAL ACTION 

1. CCPEDC should assist the towns in defining "Water Resource Protection 
Areas" and in adopting the recommended controls for these areas. 

2. CCPEDC should assist towns concerned with pond eutrophication in 
developing pond studies and in selecting pond management techniques based 
on the results of the ecological studies. 

3. CCPEDC should assist towns in obtaining funds for watershed protection 



TOWN ACTION 

1. Towns should cooperate with the 208 staff in defining "Water Resource 
Protection Areas" and should adopt the recommended protective measures by 
establishing overlay districts and making necessary zoning changes to 
modify density within these areas. 

2. Towns should make land acquisition in "Water Resource Protection Areas" 
a high priority. Watershed areas should also be integrated into town rec- 
reation plans and passive recreational activities should be allowed. In 
addition, towns should consider transfer of development rights from these 
areas . 

2-69 



3. Towns should establish "Seasonal Residential Areas" in their zon- 
ing by-law and control conversions of seasonal dwelling units to year- 
round dwelling units through special permit. 

4. Towns should conduct a thorough study of a pond which is suffering 
from eutrophication problems prior to taking corrective measures. 
Plans for such pond studies should be coordinated with the 208 program, 

5. Town conservation commissions should utilize their authority under 
the state Wetlands Act to the full extent possible to control storm 
drains discharging into ponds. 

■ . 

6. Towns engaged in 201 Step 1 facility plans should examine pond 
eutrophication problems through a comprehensive study of the town. 



2-70 



spuod oq.ui quouncpos jo uotsojio 



Xpn^s puod uo sonbiuupo:; 
XO-iquoo uoT^BOTqdoj^na osBg 



CO < uu< u < u uu 



cq < u c_j ea cj < cquu 



CJ U U CQ U U tt 



o o cj co u u oa 



rH 

> 

CD T3 
M < 

rH 

CD X 

> r-, 

T3 <D 

< > 



Q LU 



<D 






c 






•H 






i— 1 






<D 






(/> 






ol 






Xi 






O 






+-» 






0> 






> 






•H 






-P 






CO 




CD 


r-l 




C 


0) 




•H 


rH 




i— ( 
CD 


•»-> 




to 


o 




03 


03 




X> 


CX 






E 




£ 


•H 




O 


i — I 




ch 


CO 






•H 




CJ 


O 




a 


•rH 




c 


Ch 


1—1 


cd 


<L) 


CO 


^ 


C 


•H 


a> 


CD 


U 


<+A 


rd 


•H 


<u 




4h 


•H 


X 


u 


13 


rH 


c 




CD 


o 


O 


> 


DO 


~z. 



SB9JIB 

XBiquopTSOj: xbuosbss qsixqB^sg 



SB9.IB 

XB9T}.t.io ut ooBds uodo sainbov 



CQ < U CJ U CQ CO CJ CJ CJ 



cj u u cj cj u ca 



< < cj < < <c < oauu 



CJ CJ CJ CQ o ca CQ 



< CQ CJ 



sxciquoo bojcb uoiT.osq.oJLd 
oojcnosoj: .io^bm quouioxdmx 



CQ 



CJ CO < 



CQ CJ CJ 



CJ CJ CJ CQ O CQ CQ 



*-> 
O 
(0 

a 

E 



(0 

*-» 
c 

E 
c 
o 

J— 

"> 
c 

LU 



O 

*■* 
c 
o 

o 

a> 
(/) 

3 

"O 

C 
CO 



o 

•H 

+-> 

CO 

c 

CO 

i— i 
CX 
X 
CD 

^ 
O 

Cm 



sicmiNoo asn aNvi 



SN0I1VQN3MNI033H 



i 

to 
to 

CD 
10 
(/> 

cO 



CO 4-> r-~\ 

<-< c • 
ex <l» w 

E -/) 

CD 

u 



<+H 

CO 



o 

a, 



CD CD +-> 

CD C 

CO Uh CJ 

^ O £ 



CO 

CJ 

< 

ex 



—J 

< 

UJ 



o 

> 
UJ 



X 

t-0 
O 
i— ( 

o 
o 

cu 

x 

o 

r- 1 
G 

>H 

S3 



tO 

cO 
<D 
5-i 
CO 

CD 
> 
•H 
+-> 
•H 
10 

c 

CD 



cO 

c 

CD 

E 

c; 
o 

> 
CO I 



cz 
U 

H 

o 

— I 
CD 
cO 

nj 



nj 
U 

O 

<-> 



♦J 

to 
0) 
Ih 

o 



1/1 

c 

nj 

i-H 

0) 



CD 

u 

10 

c; 
o 

|o 



o 

i 



X 



cO ■— i 
3 cO 

to 

fH CO 

<D O 



71 



o 
o 
nj 

f- 

CO 

C 

a 
o 

i 



CD 
O 

c 

CO 

^-( 
cO 

X 

.H <D 
4-> 4-> 

C cO 
cO 5 

u o 

(D >-i 
4-J O 

to l 






nj 

> 

0) 

e 

o 
u 

.-. 

U 

o 
C 

uu 



co 

< 

Q- 



CJ 



o 
o 

CJ 

LU 



co 






CD 






• H 






+-> 






• H 






c 




c 


3 




o 


4-> 




•rH 


f-l 




*-» 


o 


4-> 


cO 


ex 


c 


a 


ex 


<D 


•H 


o 


X 


CM 

•rH 


x 


o 


to 


o 


1— < 


S-i 


•<—l 


ex 


CD 




E 


> 


c 


<D 


■H 


■H 


C 

3 


-a 


CD 




o 


10 


T3 


•H 


cO 


CD 


E 


CD 


O 


O 


'r-i 


3 


c 


U 


-o 


o 


c 


CD 


o 


t-H 


Ci 


cu 



o 

CO 

CD X 



CD 

cx| 
o 

ex] 



oj -o 

> CD 

exj 
X o 

♦-» r-t 
r-. CD 

CD > 

ex cd 
o a 





to 




*-> 




to 




o 




o 


-a 




c 


CD 


CO 


CJ 


i— ( 


•H 




> 


TD 


F-4 


CD 


0) 


ex 


(^ 


o 




<-" 


•o 


CD 


CD 


> 


N 


CD 


•rH 


-o 


E 


C 


•rH 


ZD 


c 


i 


•rH 




^1 



3 

cx| 

o 



X 



cO 


. . 


O 


CD 


• H 


i-H 


CO 


J=> 


X 


o3 


rC 


rH 


ex 


3 




to 


CD 


cO 


fc 


CO 


cO 


E 


♦-» 


X 


cO 


r— 1 


rC 


CD 


♦-» 


> 




•H 


1/) 


4-> 


♦-> 


CO 


CJ 


♦J 


CO 


•rH 


ex 


r-H 


E 


CO 


•H 


3 




CT 


U 




o 


rH 


u. 


O 



SpUOd O.J.UT. 3.U9U1TP9S JO UOTSO.I9 

'jjounjc j;9T.BMiuj:oq.s xo-i-iuoo 



Xpn^s puod uo ssnbiuipa} 
Xojiiuoo uoi^BOTijdoj^ns gsisg 



SB9J.TS 

XBT^uapissj x BUOSBas Msixq^^sg 



sb 9.112 
Xbot.it.io ui aoBds ugdo ajinbov 



O O O O i— < *— i o o 



o ooo<-iooo 



CM O O 



CN -— I CM t- I O O 



+ + 



+ + 



+ + 



u 




0) 




,3 




+-> 




•H 




O 




V) 




Cd 




TJ 




O 




4-> 




ra 




3 




f— i 




n 




> 




o 




o 




J-i 




a 




tO 


CD 


p; 


> 


o 


•ri 


•H 


•M 


4-> 


Cd 


cd 


ZC 


J-l 


O 


0) 


c 


•u 




•r-i 


S-c 


V) 


o 


c 




o 


o 


o 


> 




•H 


f-. 


4-> 


d> 


•r-( 


r- 


■T, 


4-> 


o 


o 


p. 



cd 

ex 
c 
cd 
.c 
cj 

en 
o 

<u 

"O 

3 
4-> 

•H 

3 
oo 

cd 

E 

X 

JD 

-a 
o 
+-> 
cd 

3 
i— i 
cd 

> 

a> 

CD 

cd 

</) 
■t-> 
u 
cd 

P. 

e 



03 

o 

o 

CO 



SXO-IIUOO B9JB UOT^09^0jd 

9Djcnos9a i3;bm q.u9ui9xduix 



H N H N H O •— • 



4-> 

•• c 

CO o 
H O 

u ^ 

< 

a. co 

HH O 

as 

►J E- 

< z 

H O 

z u 

Z CO 

O 3 
OS 

l-H Q 

> z 

z <! 



siohinod 55T! <3M\fi 



SN0I1VCIN3WW03HH 



co 

cj 
< 

o- 



< 

CJ 

o 

CO 



0) 

cd 



a) 3 

to o 

:z> J-. 
cj 

•a i 
c 

03 



3 

o 

■H 
4J 

cd 

r— i 

o 

CM 

c 
o 
— t 
4-1 
cd 

3 
«J 
cd 

CO 

I 









a 










io 










3 










X 










•M 










J-l 










<D 






X 




Pi 






4-> 


u 


O 






•H 


a> 


Jh 






i— < 


■M 


P, 






■H 


o 








,0 


cd 


c 






ri 


5-i 


o 


X 




i— t 


cd 




E 




• H 


rC 


to 


O 




cd 


o 


c 


c 


co 


> 




o 


o 


c 


cd 


X 


•H 


+J 


•H 




■M 


4-> 


3 


to 


CC 


•H 


O 


cd 


3 


c 


c 


•H 




O 


•H 


3 


Sh 


i— i 


o 


UI 


£ 


4-> 


cd 


i 


3 


E 


to 


o 


i 


O 


O 


o 


o 




X 


CJ 


es 


J 


- 








1 



cd 

M 

o 
PJ 

to 

c 

C3 



cd 

c 
o 



CO 

z 

o 

>— ( 



Q 

l-H 

CO 

z 

o 

CJ 

OS 

o 



X 



re 

u 



o 
o, 



re 


•H 

3 

4-> 

■H 
4-1 

ir. 
C 



re 

■M 

Pi 
<1) 

u 

a 

re 



X 



o 
i— 
re 
u 
t/1 

<~ 
o 

x| 

E 

o 
c 

o 

CJ 

0) 






X 

o 

o 

c 

o 

CD 
<-> 

o 
xj 

4-> 



re 
o 

■H 

c 

cj 
U 

c- 



■H 

- 

re 



- 
O 
■H 

re 
4J 

c 

UJ 

E 
(L 

i — ( 



X| 

o 
3 

4-> 

C^ 
•H 

l/l 

c 
o 

a 



X 

u c 

C cd 

o <— < 

4-> O- 

■h s: 

CO M 

C CJ 

O I 
CJ 



X 
u 

3 

u 

4-1 

00 
■H 
Ifl 

3 
C 
U 

co 
U 



u 
3 
V 
*-> 
t/1 
•H 
I/) 

3 
c 
u 

3 
re 



2-72 



Wafer Supply Management 



The greatest need for regional planning on Cape Cod is in water supply 
management. The fifteen towns share a groundwater aquifer locally re- 
charged by precipitation as their sole source of water supply. While 
the volume of groundwater available for water supply is generally abun- 
dant, planning efforts must be directed at maintaining drinking water 
quality. 

To ensure water quality, towns must protect the land areas which pro- 
vide recharge to their water supply wells. Since the recharge area for 
a municipal well is quite large, and since groundwater flows readily 
across town boundaries, polluting land uses in one town may affect a 
neighboring town's water supply. Even if a town were to provide for the 
protection of its own water supply wells, the state legislature could 
allocate some of its water resources to a neighboring town which has 
over-developed or polluted its own water resources. 

The need for regional water supply planning was illustrated by recent 
developments on the outer Cape. Provincetown obtains its water from 
Truro because its own groundwater is of naturally very poor quality. 
Permission to obtain water from a limited area of Truro was given to 
Provincetown by a special act of the Massachusetts legislature. The 
present water system is inadequate, and Provincetown has for several 
years been looking for a new 1 MGD well site. 

Provincetown 's second wellfield was shut down in 1977 because of a gaso- 
line spill at a nearby service station, creating an immediate need for 
an emergency supply. A large portion of the area in which Provincetown 
is authorized to place wells is now within National Park boundaries, how- 
ever, and national policies are generally against removal of water 
resources from a National Park. 

The emergency was resolved by the installation of two temporary well- 
fields, one in the National Park under an emergency permit, and one in 
North Truro Air Force Base. The long-term water shortage remains un- 
resolved, however, as the condition of the National Park permit was that 
the system would be removed when the permit expires. There is also grow- 
ing resistance among Truro citizens to the development of permanent well- 
fields in Truro. Concern over possible adverse impacts on private wells 
is the primary basis for this resistance, and the question has often been 
raised whether Provincetown should have the right to grow beyond the 
capacity of its available water supply at Truro's expense. 

While the Provincetown case is extreme, several towns on the Cape may 
have to face the question of whether they can protect adequate water 
supply recharge areas within their towns to supply their projected popu- 
lation, or whether water treatment, inter-town water transfers or growth 
control may be needed to ensure an adequate water supply. A comprehen- 
sive water supply planning program is needed to answer these questions. 
Two preliminary steps were conducted during the 208 planning effort. 
"Recharge area needs" were projected and "potential water supply develop- 
ment areas" were identified. 



2-73 



Recharge Area Needs 

During the 208 planning program a formula was developed for estimating 
the amount of land area a town would need to protect to maintain water 
quality in a supply well. As described in draft Chapter 5, the 
groundwater is recharged by precipitation percolating through the land 
surface. It has been estimated that 16" of the total annual precipi- 
tation on Cape Cod recharges the water table. Using this figure, the 
amount of land area contributing recharge to a well can be calculated on 
the basis of the pumping rate. 

The formula was used to estimate the amount of land area that will be 
contributing to town water supply wells in 199S if the entire population 
is served with public water. Summer 1995 population projections and an 
assumed per capita water use of 100 gal/day were used to draw circular 
"recharge area needs" for each town. (See Map 5.5 Recharge Area Needs) 
The circles may be interpreted as indicating the minimum amount of land 
area to be placed under protective controls to guarantee the quality 
of water for 1995 supplies. It must be understood that this formula 
is based on a number of simplifying assumptions, however, and that the 
intention of the map is to indicate the gross relationships of the 
recharge areas to the total land area of the towns. 

It must also be understood that the map is not intended to indicate 
water quantity limitations. With the exception of Provincetown and Truro, 
there should be no question that the needed volume of groundwater will be 
available for water supply. As long as there are no major withdrawals 
for consumptive use (in which the used water is not returned to the ground) 
there are no foreseeable water quantity problems other than Provincetown' s . 
Localized pond water level lowering and saltwater intrusion are pos- 
sible, however, and are discussed in the draft plan (Environmental 
Assessment, Chapter 4) . 

Potential Water Supply Development Areas 

To determine whether towns can meet the recharge area needs within their 
town boundaries, existing land uses affecting water quality were mapped on 
a regional scale (Map 5.2 "Water Quality Significant Land Uses"). These 
land areas, which are densely developed or where major pollution sources are 
located, are not considered to be of value for water supply protection. 
Additional areas downgradient, or downflow, of such polluting land uses 
must also be eliminated from consideration. 

Land areas meeting recommended criteria for water quality protection 
and water supply development were identified in Map 5 . 6 "Potenti-1 
Water Supply Development Areas." This map, too, was intended to provide 
a regional perspective. It is likely that towns will be able to 
identify additional areas within their boundaries, particularly around 
existing wellfields, that are suitable for water supply protection. 

By comparing the Recharge Area Needs and Potential Water Supply 
Development Areas maps it is possible to draw some preliminary con- 
clusions on whether towns can protect adequate water supplies for 1995 
within their own borders. Using these two maps, the Cape was examined 
for potential regional water supply conflicts and planning needs. 



2-74 



Groundwater Basins 

As illustrated by the Water Table Map, (Map 2.1 of the draft plan), the 
Cape Cod groundwater aquifer is bounded by the Cape Cod Bay, the Cape Cod 
Canal, the Atlantic Ocean and Nantucket Sound. This aquifer has been 
studied and modeled by the USGS in a four-year study to be completed in 
1978. Two Bourne villages, Buzzards Bay and North Sagamore, are on the 
mainland side of the Canal, and draw water supplies from a different 
aquifer system which was investigated by USGS in 1974. 

The Cape Cod aquifer is naturally divided into hydrologic sub-regions, or 
basins, by streams and glacial outwash valleys where the water table drops 
nearly to sea level. Towns within each basin can directly affect one 
another's water supply; however, the state legislature's power of water 
resource allocation makes all fifteen towns interdependent for water sup- 
ply planning and management. The following discussion covers the six 
groundwater basins of the Cape Cod aquifer. The mainland aquifer utilized 
by part of Bourne will be discussed in the town section. 

1. Upper Cape (Cape Cod Canal to Bass River) 

The upper Cape is underlain by a large, high, water table area, 60 feet 
high in the center. The predominant land use feature in this region is 
Otis Air Force Base, which occupies 30 square miles along the Sandwich/ 
Bourne border. Because of the large amount of land kept in natural con- 
dition by the base, it is generally believed that this area is a major 
water supply for the entire Cape. It is also felt that the base protects 
water supplies in the surrounding areas because it lies essentially at 
the top of the water table, and groundwater flow radiates out from the 
center of the base. 

The value of Otis as a regional water supply requires further evaluation. 
Military uses are characteristically hazardous to groundwater quality. 
Servicing of aircraft, cleaning engines, transporting and storing gasoline 
and oil are major potential sources of groundwater contamination. A pipe- 
line for jet fuel running from the Cape Cod Canal through the Sandwich 
section of Otis is reported to be subject to frequent and serious leaks. 
Several wells at the base itself have been shut down because of nitrate 
or phenol contamination. Water explorations in northeastern Falmouth, 
downgradient of the base's sand filterbed sewage disposal facility have 
shown elevated nitrates, and a vein of high nitrates has also been de- 
tected in undeveloped areas upgradient of the treatment plant site. 

It is important that Otis be further investigated so that the idea of its 
being a regional watershed does not provide a false sense of security to 
abutting towns. It should be recognized that the fact that the water ta- 
ble is high at Otis, does not make it inherently more valuable than other 
recharge areas. Major withdrawals of groundwater cause impacts relative 
to the recharge rate, which is uniform throughout the Cape, rather than 
to the amount of water presently in storage under the area. The advantage 
the area does have is that it is the least vulnerable to saltwater intru- 
sion. Any plan to export water from Otis to other parts of the Cape 
should be carefully analyzed for environmental impacts, using the USGS 
groundwater model. 



2-75 



The determination of Otis' value as a watershed protection area has 
implications beyond water supply. It has frequently been suggested 
that Otis is ideally suited to serve as a regional waste disposal site. 
Proposals have included a regional landfill or resource recovery sys- 
tem, regional sewage disposal for Falmouth and Otis, and a regional 
septage treatment plant for Bourne, Sandwich and Mashpee. If it is found 
that Otis presently has excellent groundwater quality, the possible 
environmental degradation associated with such uses might not be 
acceptable. If, on the other hand, it is found that some areas 
presently have degraded water quality, location of such uses at Otis 
could be most appropriate. 

Comparing the Recharge Area Needs and Potential Water Supply Development 
Areas maps, it is evident that all the towns in this region except Yar- 
mouth have large areas indicated as potential water supply development 
areas. They should have no problem meeting the needs for protected water 
supplies within their town borders. Barnstable has very high density dev- 
elopment in the proximity of some wells, however, and water quality 
degradation has already occurred. Water treatment or replacement of these 
wells by wells near the groundwater divide may be necessary. Yarmouth 
is highly developed and has experienced some "water quality degradation. 
It may have difficulty meeting water supply protection needs and may have 
to consider water treatment or connection with an adjacent town to 
supply untreated water at some point in the future. 

2. Lower Cape (Bass River to Town Cove and Rock Harbor Creek) 

A large groundwater basin is shared by the lower Cape towns of Dennis, 
Brewster, Harwich, Chatham and Orleans. These five towns should 
seriously consider coordination of water supply development. Brewster 
and Harwich, located at the center of the groundwater basin have the 
capacity to protect, or contaminate, tremendous potential water supply 
development areas. Orleans and Chatham, on the other hand, appear to have 
limited potential water supply development areas due to existing land 
uses and the proximity of saltwater to low water table areas. Harwich 
is also the only town on the Cape that is truly upgradient of another 
town (Chatham), with the potential for directly affecting water quality 
in that town. 

Regional sharing of groundwater is probably already occurring in this 
basin. Although Dennis appears to have large water supply protection 
areas in its town, several of its wells are close enough to draw water from 
under Brewster. Chatham and Harwich are competing for water, wiJ.\ wells 
located near their common border. As with other areas, any regional 
water supply plan for this basin should be analyzed for environmental 
impacts . 

3. Outer Cape (Orleans to Provincetown) 

Four groundwater basins underlie the outer Cape towns, defined by 
Blackfish Creek, Pamet River and the Pilgrim Springs salt meadow. 
All of these sub-basins have very similar land use and geohydrologic 
features, and will be discussed together. 



2-76 



The lower Cape towns are narrow and are laid out in linear fashion. 
Groundwater flows towards each shore, and it is unlikely that water 
withdrawals would induce substantial longitudinal flow from one town 
to the next. The regional relationship of the towns is institutional' 
if one runs out of water it must seek water from the next town. 

The freshwater lens on the lower Cape is much thinner than the uppsr 
Cape's and fresh water is underlain by saltwater. For this reason, the 
area is more suitable for private well use than public water supplies. 
Saltwater intrusion is a possible impact of any major withdrawals , and 
saltwater intrusion problems are already occurring in one well located 
in North Truro which supplies Provincetown. 

The major land use feature of the outer Cape is the National Seashore 
Park, which was created under P.L. 87-126 for the purpose of preser- 
vation of the unique flora, fauna and physiographic setting of the 
area. These include the Park's groundwater-related resources: ponds, 
wetlands and estuaries. Since the Park maintains more than half of 
the land area from Eastham to Provincetown in open space and low den- 
sity residential use, it essentially protects the major potential water 
supply recharge areas in each town. 

As development outside the Park progresses, however, increased pressure 
will be placed on the Park to allow groundwater removal for water supply, 
a practice which is contrary to the Park's enabling legislation. The 
only authority under which the Park could provide water to neighboring 
towns is in P.L. 91-383, which stipulates that there must be no adverse 
impact on the natural environment of the Park and that an applicant for 
water must demonstrate that there is no feasible alternative source of 
water supply. 

The National Park Service has formulated policies for implementing the 
purposes of 91-383, which include the following requirements: 

--A determination must be made that the applicant has no reasonable 
alternative to the use of park resources or services; 

--The effects of the use of the resource or service on the park's 
environment, administration, management and protection have been 
examined, and that the effects have been determined to be accep- 
table; 

--The use of water resources will be in accordance with liws and 
regulations governing ownership and use of federal water and land 
rights; 

--Reasonable charges be levied based on prevailing rates for similar 
services of resource use; and 

--The permitted use be revokable and terminable within a specified 
period of time, and that no permanent property rights are conveyed 
to the user for any resource or water within an area of the Na- 
tional Park Service. 



2-77 



It has been a concern of the 208 program that the implementation of 
these policies should not lead to a narrow perspective on the environ- 
mental impacts of water supply development on the outer Cape. The 
water resources of the National Park cannot be thought of as being 
isolated from those of the remaining outer Cape lands. Development of 
water supply wells anywhere on the outer Cape could have adverse envi- 
ronmental impacts, whether the wells are located within or outside of 
park boundaries. Similarly, consideration of environmental impacts 
should not be limited to preservation of park resources alone. The 
208 water quality goals call for the maintenance of natural water levels 
in ponds, streams and wetlands throughout the Cape. Resolution of the 
outer Cape water conflicts must, therefore, be based on an environmental 
assessment of all alternatives, including wellsites inside the park, and 
should lead to development of the most environmentally sound alternative 
for the whole region. 

Water supply planning for the outer Cape basins must be given priority 
by the Park service, the local communities, the CCPEDC and the Massa- 
chusetts Water Resources Commission since Provincetown has an immediate 
need for water to serve its present population. Future water supply 
needs for the outer Cape area must also be assessed, giving full con- 
sideration to growth control measures and mandatory water conservation 
measures to prevent overdevelopment of the groundwater resources and 
to prevent adverse impacts on related natural resources. 



Water Supply Planning 

Most local water departments, water districts and private water companies 
carry out their own water system planning and management independent of 
town planning efforts. They generally prepare a supply master plan for 
system expansions, wellfield exploration, installation and management. 

Local water supply development is regulated by the DEQE, Water Supply 
Division. When a water utility wants to develop a new well, it must 
receive approval from the DEQE. DEQE requires that the area within the 
400' radius around the well be protected from human activities. 

Where a town needs to install a public water supply well in another town, 
as Provincetown has wells in Truro, the town must obtain permission from 
the General Court. Once this permission has been granted, there is no 
further state regulation (beyond regular DEQE approval) of the number of 
wells or the pumping capacity of the wells installed in the neighboring 
town. 

A water supply system may be expanded into new areas for a number of 
reasons including improved fire protection, reduced development costs or 
improved supply reliability. Water quality has not historically been a 
major consideration. In general, water departments or districts are 
responsive to requests for expansion of the system. There have been some 
concerns voiced during the 208 planning program, however, that private 
water companies have not been receptive to expansions unless all resi- 
dents in the area guarantee that they will hook up to the system. 



2-78 



As discussed in the 208 draft plan, there are currently 17 water util- 
ities on Cape Cod, two private water companies, nine districts and six 
town departments. Bourne and Barnstable are each served by four separate 
water utilities. With the diversity of management practices and devel- 
opment plans of these separate water utilities, water supply planning is 
difficult even within one town. 

While there are some interconnections between water districts, there is 
little or no regional coordination of water supply planning. The Massa- 
chusetts Water Supply Policy Statement, published in May 1978, recognized 
this lack of long-term regional water supply planning throughout the state 
The Policy Statement recommended that the Water Resources Commission 
initiate state level responsibilities for broad long-range planning, 
coordinating with regional planning agencies. To accomplish such regional 
and local water supply planning, the policy statement calls for a 
program of matching grants to fund regional and local water supply 
studies . 

This recommendation is strongly supported by the 208 program and it is 
further recommended that a Cape Cod water supply management plan be pre- 
pared as part of the regional water quality planning program to assure 
coordination between water supply and water quality considerations. The 
regional v;ater supply management plan would evaluate the following areas 
as part of the overall planning program: 

a. Present water system capacity and future expansion plans 

b. Projected water supply needs for twenty year planning period 
based on water quality considerations 

c. Identification of specific sites for future wellfields 

d. Coordination of water utilities in meeting expansion needs and 
management practices 

e. Private vs. public ownership of water utilities 

f. Funding sources for expansion of system or for protection of well 
recharge areas 

g. A mechanism, or authority, for coordinating water withdrawal 
possibly for all wells over 50,000 gpd capacity. 

h. Regulating inter- town transfers of water on the basis of hydrologic 

analysis by USGS 
i. Improving water conservation through such measures as modifying 

rate schedules 
g. Implementing protective measures for present and future public wells 
h. Environmental impacts of future water withdrawals 

The preparation of this regional plan should utilize information provided 
by the USGS study and would be based on a full public participation 
program. While the preparation of a regional water supply management 
plan is a very important step in improving the management and protection 
of the Cape's groundwater, the possibility for state or federal funding 
is expected to be limited in the next few years. In the interim, the 
208 program should assist towns in implementing land use management 
recommendations and will work, within its staff limitations, to encourage 
inter-town water supply coordination. 



2-79 



The 208 plan recommends the following actions be taken to improve water 
supply management on Cape Cod: 

FEDERAL ACTION 

1. EPA should provide funds to states to carry out long-term water supply 
planning and management programs as recommended by the Mass. Water Supply 
Policy Study. Cape Cod should be designated as a watershed area for 
planning under that proposal. 

2. USGS should continue its Cooperative Agreement with CCPEDC to assure 
the full utilization of the information developed in its comprehensive 
study of Cape Cod and to assist CCPEDC in developing a regional water 
supply management plan. 

3. The National Park Service should work closely with CCPEDC through its 
Water Resources Advisory Council and with the towns of Provincetown, Truro 
Wellfleet and Eastham to initiate an immediate water supply planning 
effort for the lower Cape area. 

4. The National Park Service should continue to financially support 
the work of USGS in maintaining its Cape Cod monitoring system and in 
utilizing the information developed in the USGS Comprehensive Study for 
continued analysis of water supply problems on the lower Cape. 

5. EPA should seek the participation of CCPEDC and its Water Resources 
Advisory Council in evaluating the designation of Cape Cod as a Sole 
Source Acquifer under the Safe Drinking Water Act. 



S TATE ACTION 

1. DEQE Water Supply Division should utilize the USGS model and should 
coordinate with the 208 program in evaluating requests for new wells or 
increasing the pumping capacities of present wells. The Water Supply 
Division should also encourage water utilities to implement the 208 
recommended land use protective measures for all public wells. 

2. State should provide funds to CCPEDC to prepare a Regional Water Sup- 
ply Management Plan in accordance with recommended policies in the Mass. 
Water Supply Policy Statement. 

3. The Water Resources Commission should provide funds and/or assistance 
to local water utilities to acquire land for protection of public wells, 
to develop new wells, to rehabilitate and improve facilities and equip- 
ment, to modify rate schedules and to install meters on all services.* 

4. The Water Resources Commision should carry out a long-range water 
supply planning program that is coordinated with regional and local plan- 
ning efforts as well as other state and regional programs such as sewer 
facility construction and Coastal Zone Management. Public participation 
should be an integral part of this ongoing program.* 



2-80 



5. DEQE and the Water Resources Commission should encourage towns to use 
water sources within their own boundaries. Before allocation of water 
resources between towns, the receiving town should be required to demon- 
strate, pursuant to MEPA review, that environmental impacts are within 
acceptable limits and that local options have been exhausted, includ- 
ing supply augmentation within the town, watershed management, and ef- 
fective water conservation measures.* 

•6. DEQE should fund a study of water quality within Otis AFB to de- 
termine whether or not the area may serve as a future water supply 
development area or as a potential site for wastewater or solid waste 
management facilities. 

* Based on recommendations of the Mass. Water Supply Policy Statement 

REGIONAL ACTION 

1. CCPEDC should seek funds in its annual county budget request to con- 
tinue its Cooperative Agreement with USGS, to continue monitoring USGS 
installed wells and to utilize the USGS computer model for regional 

and local water supply planning. 

2. CCPEDC should seek funds to prepare a Regional Water Supply Manage- 
ment Plan for Cape Cod from state and federal sources. 

3. CCPEDC, through its Water Resources Advisory Council, should assist 
towns to coordinate future water supply development plans and to imple- 
ment the water supply protective measures recommended in the 20S plan. 

4. CCPEDC should further examine the possibility of designating Cape 
Cod as a Sole Source Aquifer and should work with EPA in its considera- 
tion of such a designation. 



LOCAL ACTION 

1. Towns should cooperate in regional water supply planning efforts 
through the Water Resources Advisory Council. Towns should implement 
the water supply protective measures and the water conservation efforts 
recommended by the 208 plan. 



2-81 



Non-Point Source Controls 

Non-point sources of pollution are those sources that do not come 
from an identifiable discharge point or pipe. Point sources of 
pollution discharge directly from a pipe, usually into a river, 
lake or the ocean. Point sources of pollution such as sewage treat- 
ment plant and industrial discharges are of major concern in most 
parts of the state and nation. On Cape Cod, however, the major 
source of water quality degradation is from non-point sources of 
pollution. 

Wastewater from septic systems is the major non-point source of 
pollution on Cape Cod. Measures to control this source of pol- 
lution are discussed in the "Wastewater Management" section of 
the final plan. In this section, controls for the abatement of 
other non-point sources of concern to the Cape are recommended. 
These non-point sources are storm water runoff from urbanized 
areas, construction-related activities, agricultural activities 
and the use of fertilizer and pesticides, oil and gasoline leaks 
and spills, salt water intrusion and sanitary landfills. 

As indicated in the previous section, non-point sources of pol- 
lution in areas critical to water quality should be controlled 
primarily through the implementation of 208 land use recommen- 
dations. The abatement controls recommended in this section, 
should also be implemented to minimize the impacts of non-point 
sources on the overall water quality of the region. 



2-82 



Landfills 

A number of Cape Cod towns face the problem of relocating or expanding 
their landfills as present landfill areas will become exhausted in the 
next few years. Landfills are recognized as a major threat to water 
quality for both ground and surface waters (see pp. 3-51 to 3-54 of the 
draft plan) . The proliferation or intensification of these pollution 
sources by continued reliance on solid waste disposal by landfill is 
not an acceptable solid waste management approach on Cape Cod. 

As indicated in the draft plan, pp. 5-17 to 5-18, landfill operation is 
regulated by DEQE under Chapter 111 of the Mass. General Laws. Compli- 
ance with the state regulations currently varies from one town to 
another. Cape towns are generally not able to comply with the regulation 
requiring the use of impervious cover. The lack of availability of this 
material locally and the cost of purchasing and importing it from other 
areas has caused many towns to use sandy cover material in their land- 
fill operations. Percolation is facilitated by this practice, and 
increased generation of leachate results, intensifying the potential 
hazard to the groundwater supply. 

The regionalization of solid waste disposal facilities appears inevitable 
as operational costs escalate and improve the economies of scale to be 
gained in a regional facility. Further regionalization would eliminate 
the major pollution sources caused by separate town landfills. However, 
regionalization that results in a single regional landfill site still 
poses a major water quality threat to the areas downgradient of such a 
site. The minimization of this threat through resource recovery is the 
method of waste disposal that is recommended by this plan and is the 
preferred method of the State Department of Environmental Management, 
Bureau of Solid Waste Disposal. 

The Bureau of Solid Waste Disposal is working towards a state-wide 
system of major regional resource recovery facilities. The nearest to 
the Cape is to be sited somewhere in southeastern Massachusetts. Al- 
though consideration of a minor facility is indicated for Cape Cod, 
there is considerable fluctuation in the solid waste produced by the win- 
ter population of 130,000 and the summer population of 380,000. 
Designing a cost-effective facility capable of handling the fluctuation 
of generation rates does not seem practical. From a political perspec- 
tive, the assured state priorities (urban areas) and the competitive 
capability of the Cape in seeking funding assistance for construction 
puts the possibility of a Cape facility in the distant future. 

While the potential for a major regional resource recovery facility seems 
unlikely in the near future, there are a number of alternatives available 
to reduce the volume of solid waste that must be landfilled. Further 
efforts in the area of recycling could make a considerable contribution 
to this volume reduction effort. In addition, there are alternatives such 
as utilizing the rail lines to transport solid waste off the Cape to the 
nearest regional facility. CCPEDC and other supporters have succeeded 
in preventing the abandonment of the rail lines by Penn Central and have 
secured state assistance in rehabilitating the rail system to current 
standards. The future of rail to transport solid waste off Cape to the 
nearest state regional facility has been considered in these efforts. 

2-83 



Recognizing that there is a great deal of work and time required to 
consider all disposal alternatives and to implement a chosen alternative, 
the CCPEDC has voted to create a 15-town Regional Solid Waste Management 
Advisory Committee to examine the feasibility of regionalization. The 
work of this committee should be guided to produce intermediate forms of 
regionalization that will be compatible with implementing the ultimate 
disposal approach, preferably transporting the solid waste off-Cape or 
establishing a regional resource recovery facility. 

The boards of selectmen are appointing representatives to this committee 
and it is anticipated that the work of the committee will get underway 
in October, 1978. Because CCPEDC has no special funds and limited staff 
available for this effort, it will rely on technical assistance provided 
by the Bureau of Solid Waste Disposal. 

The Bureau of Solid Waste Disposal is presently involved in the development 
of a state solid waste management plan under the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act of 1975 (RCRA) . This effort also involves DEQE, pri- 
marily its Division of Air and Hazardous Materials (DAHM) and the Division 
of Water Pollution Control (DWPC) . A state plan, under RCRA must prohibit 
the establishment of new open dumps (to be defined under the act) , provide 
for the closing or upgrading of all existing open dumps, provide for 
resource conservation or recovery and for solid waste disposal in sanitary 
landfills (to be defined under the act). 

DEQE is currently working on a number of plan elements. DAHM will be 
conducting an inventory of open dumps and evaluating the findings of this 
inventory in FY 79. DAHM also plans a more stringent program to enforce 
the state landfill regulations in FY 79 to be consistent with the 
goals of RCRA. 

Due to the draft criteria for classification of solid waste disposal faci- 
lities issued by EPA, DEQE anticipates that it will be revising the state 
landfill regulations. It is likely that these changes will result in more 
stringent regulations to meet the EPA criteria. Subsequently, increased 
enforcement of the regulations can be expected as part of the state's 
efforts to comply with the intent of RCRA. 

The act also stresses the importance of hazardous waste management, set- 
ting up standards for the generators of hazardous waste and authorizing 
state hazardous waste programs. Under this section of the act, DEQE 
has a major effort underway to establish a hazardous waste disposal 
facility in Massachusetts. The state's consultant in this program has 
developed site selection criteria and is in the process of evaluating a 
number of potential sites for the disposal facility. 

Another important element of RCRA is its emphasis on regional solid waste 
management solutions. Due to the limited planning funds available under 
the Act, funds were not available to prepare regional plans. A RCRA Task 
Force was formed to coordinate the efforts of the various involved state 
agencies and it is the intention of the Task Force to more specifically 
define the role of regions in solid waste management as the state plan 
progresses. 



2-84 



A major aspect of the Bureau of Solid Waste work under RCRA is in assis- 
ting regions in developing plans for a network of major resource recovery 
facilities. At the present time the Bureau is working in four areas in 
the state to establish such facilities. Since the state must rely on 
private industry to contract and operate these facilities there is a 
major emphasis that the volume of solid waste generated in the region 
be sufficient for the facility to operate profitably. The need to main- 
tain reasonably uniform waste flow effectively discourages the siting 
of such a facility on the Cape. However, the Bureau of Solid Waste can 
also provide technical assistance to regions that want to improve solid 
waste management through resource conservation approaches that are com- 
patible with state policy and RCRA. 

While it is difficult at this point to assess the impact RCRA will have 
on solid waste management in Massachusetts (many aspects of the act have 
not been clarified through the required regulations as yet) it appears 
clear, that the intent of the Act is to reduce the water quality impacts 
and other environmental hazards of present solid and hazardous waste dis- 
posal practices. The regulations that result from the Act are anticipated 
to be considerably more stringent and will, in the coming years, make 
alternatives to current landfill practices more economically attractive. 

It is the conclusion of the 208 program that sanitary landfills pose a 
serious water quality threat and that the following actions should be 
taken to minimize this threat on Cape Cod: 

FEDERAL ACTION 

1. While RCRA is a major step in recognizing the problem of solid waste 
disposal throughout the country, EPA has been late in meeting the time 
requirements of the Act in promulgating regulations. It is the recom- 
mendation of this plan that EPA make a concerted effort to speed up the 
promulgation of regulations under RCRA to facilitate state action on 

its provisions. It is also recommended that EPA seek additional funds 
to encourage full implementation of the Act. 

2. It also appears that while RCRA addresses a major nationwide pro- 
blem, that the program is grossly underfunded and the Office of Management 
and Budget should investigate, in cooperation with EPA, the need for 
additional funding to make this Act more fully implementable. 

STATE ACTION 

1. DEQE should strictly enforce the state landfill regulations. Addi- 
tional personnel in the Lakeville office would be required for adequate 
inspections in southeastern Massachusetts including Cape Cod. Since DEQE's 
FY 79 budget request does not include these additional personnel, additional 
funds should be sought in subsequent years. While DEQE plans to increase 
its efforts in enforcement by adding new vehicles it seems unlikely that 
such an approach can be effective with the limited staffing now available. 
It is also suggested that DEQE provide additional technical assistance to 
towns to help them comply with the state landfill regulations, with great- 
est concern being placed on those aspects that serve to protect ground and 
surface water quality. 



2-85 



2. DEM and DWPC should place a high priority on selecting a site and 
establishing a hazardous waste disposal facility as soon as possible. 
DWPC should also establish regulations for a manifest system under 
RCRA for the disposal of hazardous wastes. It is likely that small 
quantities of hazardous wastes are presently being disposed of in sani- 
tary landfills on Cape Cod, particularly pesticides, gasoline, oil and 
other petroleum products. The vulnerability of Cape Cod to oil spills 
should be noted together with the unique problem posed by the disposal 
of materials generated by oil spill clean-up operations. While there is 
no acceptable site for the disposal of hazardous materials at the pre- 
sent time, DWPC should provide guidance to towns in the collection, 
storage and disposal of these materials. If collection facilities are 
planned, they can be utilized when the state establishes its hazardous 
waste disposal site. Hazardous waste disposal facilities must not be 
sited in Barnstable County. Interim collection and disposal procedures 
should be compatible with and lead to transporting such wastes off-Cape 
for disposal in the state hazardous waste disposal facility. 

3. While RCRA emphasizes the regional role in solid waste management, 
the State's RCRA Task Force has not actually involved regions in solid 
waste management planning. While it is understood that planning funds 
are limited, it should be recognized that solid waste management will 
most likely be carried out on a regional basis and, therefore, a 
greater regional role in the state plan is needed. 

4. It is recommended that the Bureau of Solid Waste further explore 
alternative means of financing resource recovery facilities other than 
through private industry. The ability of a region to deal with solid 
waste disposal is a public problem and should not be totally dependent 
upon private industry for a solution. The possibility of state funding 
assistance through a bonding capability along with other funding ap- 
proaches (including the state pressuring EPA for federal assistance) 
should be explored along with any necessary legislation to provide 
such assistance to regions. 

5. DEQE should require a landfill monitoring system whenever a town 
requests approval of an expansion or final landfill plan. 

6. DEQE should investigate present leachate collection and treatment 
technologies as well as conducting research into new technologies. Such 
a program is needed to determine the effectiveness and practicality of 
this approach to reducing the water quality impacts of landfills. 

7. Otis Air Force Base is considered as a potential regional site for a 
solid waste disposal facility in the C. E. Maguire Solid Waste Management 
Plan for Cape Cod. In the past, DEQE personnel have suggested that the 
use of Otis for such a facility would jeopardize a major future water 
supply source. Water quality information in the vicinity of Otis indi- 
cates that contamination of the aquifer may have already taken place from 
undetermined sources. It is the recommendation of this plan that DEQE 
support, through the Water Resources Commission, the further study of the 
present water quality conditions in the area and the use of Otis as a 
potential major solid waste disposal site for Cape Cod. 



2-86 



8. The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs should explore various 
methods of encouraging businesses to reduce excess packaging materials, 
possibly by taxing or prohibiting certain packaging techniques and mater- 
ials. 

9. EOEA should also encourage legislative support for passage of a 
State Bottle Bill. This legislation was strongly supported by Cape 
voters on a referendum question in 1976. 

REGIONAL ACTION 

1. CCPEDC is supporting the efforts of its newly created Regional 
Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee with available staff resources 
emphasizing the need for local cooperation to develop an implementable 
regional approach. It must be recognized that there are limited federal 
and state resources to assist such an effort and that the towns must rely 
on their own resources for acceptable short-term improvements. It is 
suggested, that CCPEDC investigate any available sources of funds to 
support its solid and hazardous waste planning efforts. 

2. CCPEDC should assist towns in planning the expansion or relocation 
of landfill facilities in evaluating water quality considerations. It 
should be recognized that such actions will not be necessary if the 
towns and the state make the needed cooperative commitments to a regional 
approach. 

3. CCPEDC should encourage and assist towns to monitor their landfills 
as discussed in the "Water Quality Assessment" section. 

4. The efforts of the Cape Cod Recycling Committee have been an impor- 
tant contribution to improving solid waste disposal on the Cape. The 
Regional Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee should seek the assis- 
tance of this group in its planning effort. Recycling must be an integral 
part of any regional resource recovery facility. 

5. The establishment of any future regional solid waste disposal facility 
must be coordinated with water resource planning. The Regional Solid 
Waste Management Advisory Committee and the Water Resources Council should 
work together in their respective planning efforts. The location of a 
regional disposal site, its design and construction, are particularly criti- 
cal to water quality. Such a facility will hopefully employ a resource 
recovery technique but for those materials that will still need to be 
landfilled, the regional landfill site should meet all state standards. 

In addition, a regional landfill should have a leachate recovery and 
treatment system. 

TOWN ACTION 

1. While a regional solid waste disposal system must be implemented as 
soon as possible, it is likely that such a plan will not be fully real- 
ized for the next 4-5 years. During this period towns should make every 
effort to extend the life of their present landfills to avoid the need to 
create new landfill sites and to minimize the impacts of the landfill by 
strictly complying with state landfill regulations. Towns should: 

2-87 



a. encourage the recycling of materials and should set aside 
areas in the landfill for the disposal and storage of re- 
cyclable materials or should cooperate in establishing sub- 
regional recycling centers. 

b. employ landfill methods that will most efficiently utilize the 
present landfill area including compacting and stacking. 

c. encourage homeowners to compost all organic materials such as 
garbage, leaves and grass. 

2. Towns should install a landfill monitoring system in cooperation 
with CCPEDC. 

3. Towns should locate all abandoned landfills and evaluate their 
current impacts on water resources in cooperation with the ongoing 208 
program staff. If the abandoned landfill poses a threat to important 
water resources due to continued leaching through the site, the town 
should consider sealing the landfill with an impervious cover to mini- 
mize its long-term water quality impacts. 

4. Towns should regionalize septage disposal facilities as discussed 
in the "Wastewater Management" section. 



2-88 



Storm Water Runoff 

From Urbanized Areas and from Construction-Related Activ ities 

As development increases there is an increase in the amount of imper- 
vious surface and, therefore, an increase in stormwater runoff. In 
general, stormwater is collected through the use of storm drains or 
catch basins which discharge directly to surface waters or to ground- 
water. The quality and quantity of stormwater runoff depends on the 
intensity and duration of the storm, as well as the duration between 
storms, the land uses in the area of drainage and the land formation 
of the area. 

The water quality impacts of stormwater runoff entering ponds, coastal 
embayments or drinking water supplies can be severe. As discussed on 
pp. 3-43 to 3-47 of the Draft Plan, runoff from urbanized areas can 
have a pollutant loading that is greater than secondary treated efflu- 
ent. Recent studies have also shown the presence of toxic organic 
substances in urban runoff. In addition, the process of urbanization 
involves construction and during construction erosion caused by runoff 
can add sediment to surface water bodies with the resultant water qual- 
ity problems discussed on pp. 5-22 to 5-23 of the Draft Plan. Sand 
and gravel pit operations are another related problem discussed on pp. 
5-22 to 5-23 of the Draft Plan. 

Controlling the water quality impacts of stormwater runoff is an immense 
and costly problem. Traditionally, stormwater runoff has been considered 
a non-point source of pollution. At the present time, storm drains are 
not regulated under the NPDES permit process in Massachusetts. Due to 
recent court action, EPA has been required to promulgate regulations that 
would include storm drains under the NPDES program. The regulation, pub- 
lished in the Feb. 4, 1977 Federal Register, establish a program based 
on the concept of a "General Permit. " Under the regulations the state 
would establish "General Permit Planning Areas" (GPPA) and issue a "Gen- 
eral Permit" for the area that would apply "to all owners and operators 
of separate storm sewers." The general permit would require such persons 
to employ "best management practices" (BMP) defined by the state program. 
At the present time the state has taken no action toward implementing 
such a general permit program. 

The 208 program conducted a very limited sampling program to evaluate the 
runoff constituents with various land uses. Substantial contamination 
with cyclic hydrocarbons, nitrates, salts and metals was found. However, 
extensive sampling and additional study is needed to determine the extent 
of water quality problems caused by runoff on Cape Cod. 

Best management practices can be applied not only to the stormwater run- 
off problems resulting from existing developed areas but also to prevent 
and control stormwater runoff problems that could result from future de- 
velopment. Since the state must develop best management practices for 
the control of existing storm sewers and drains, it is suggested that 
the following practices be evaluated to determine their appropriateness 
for small urbanized areas such as those on Cape Cod: 



2-89 



1. Improved street cleaning (frequency of street cleaning for 
optimum effectiveness should be determined) , 

2. Regular cleaning of catch basins. 

3. Maintaining and monitoring outfall pipes, 

4. Elimination of illegal sewage discharges to the storm drains. 

While it is presently not clear how effective such BMP's may be in 
controlling pollution from existing areas, it is possible for towns to 
take action to control runoff problems in future development. 

Since collection devices tend to concentrate pollution from runoff, it 
is advisable to minimize the use of storm drains by a source control or 
preventive approach. Towns have considerable authority through their 
subdivision regulations and zoning bylaws to help prevent water quality 
problems from increased runoff and the erosion and sedimentation that 
can result. It is the conclusion of the 208 plan that the control of 
storm water runoff from increasing urbanization rests largely with 
local planning boards and conservation commissions adopting preventive 
measures recommended in the following section, "Local Action." 

FEDERAL ACTION 

1. If the DWPC requests delegation by EPA of the NPDES program as a 
state responsibility EPA should require the state to establish a gen- 
eral permit program for storm drains. 

STATE ACTION 

1. DWPC should establish a general permit program and should consider 
Cape Cod as a General Permit Program Area. Best management practices to 
be required under the program should also be established. Enforcement 
of such a program, including the necessary sampling, would require con- 
siderable increases in state staff. It is, therefore, recommended that 
storm drains discharging into surface waters not meeting their state 
water quality classification should be given priority. If found to be 
polluting, these drains should be placed under the NPDES permit system. 

2. MDPW should modify its policy of discharging storm drains from high- 
ways to surface water bodies on Cape Cod. Such discharges can cause 
degradation of ponds and groundwater. Storm drains and catch basins 
discharging upgradient of public well supplies may jeopardize water 
quality from road salts and other pollutants in highway runoff. When 
undertaking modifications to highways, the MDPW should modify drainage 
systems to direct runoff away from these areas in coordination with the 
208 water quality planning program. 

REGIONAL ACTION 

1. CCPEDC should assist and encourage the town in making changes to 
their subdivision regulations and zoning bylaws suggested by the 208 plan 



2-90 



2. Additional investigation of various runoff control techniques appro- 
priate to Cape Cod should be examined in cooperation with the town 
engineers (such as utilizing pervious cover materials, drainage methods 
using surface infiltration) as part of the continuing 208 program. 

3. The Barnstable Conservation District and Soil Conservation Service 
should provide assistance to towns in developing criteria for erosion 
control plans and in evaluating erosion control plans submitted by 
developers. 

LOCAL ACTION 

1. Towns should adopt performance regulations as part of their subdi- 
vision regulations that would require developers to estimate the increase 
in runoff that will occur as a result of the development and require the 
developer to include measures to maintain runoff at its pre- development 
rate or at some acceptable increased proportion. Such a performance 
regulation is a part of the Watershed Protection District Bylaw in 
Appendix B. 

2. Towns should consider limiting the amount of impervious surface 
allowed to a certain percentage of the total land area of the develop- 
ment through the subdivision regulations for residential development 

and for various uses in the zoning bylaw. In recharge areas of municipal 
wells it is recommended that not more than 10% of lot area be covered 
with impervious materials. Planning boards should allow and encourage 
the use of non -paved surfaces and pervious surface materials in parking 
lots to reduce runoff and facilitate infiltration. Such non-paved sur- 
faces should be designed so that erosion, ponding and dust problems are 
controlled. Particularly for businesses that have seasonal fluctuations 
in parking area use, the parking area that is anticipated to be used 
year-round may be paved, but summer parking areas should be unpaved. 

3. Developers should be encouraged to utilize natural surface infil- 
tration to the maximum extent feasible and should be 

required to install a grit chamber or other means of retaining solids 
and an overflow system (solids are thus removed so that the storm water 
will not be slowly filtered through the material intensifying the pol- 
lution load). The town engineer in reviewing the developers plan, 
should evaluate whether the plan meets these requirements and suggest 
any necessary modifications. 

4. It is suggested that conservation commissions cr boards of health 
that suspect a storm drain may be the source of water quality degrada- 
tion in a specific water body should have the water from the storm drain 
tested by the Division of Water Pollution Control. If the water quality 
information gathered through such a program indicates that a specific 
storm drain is causing a serious pollution problem the conservation 
commission with its authority under the Wetlands Protection Act should 
require the owner to remove the storm drain and replace it with a sur- 
face infiltration system. In certain cases the owner of the storm 
drain may be the town or even the state. If it is suspected that direct 



2-91 



discharges or overflows of sanitary wastes are entering the storm drain, 
the board of health should order the owner to abate the problem by in- 
stalling or upgrading his on-site disposal system under the authority 
of Title 5. 

5. Planning Boards should require through the subdivision regulations 
that developers submit an erosion control plan that addresses the 
following issues (EPA, 1977). 

a. Disturbed areas should be kept to a minimum (the development 
should preferably be adapted to the site requiring a minimum of 
clearing and grading) and areas that are exposed should be only 
those areas which are actively being developed; 

b. Disturbed areas should be stabilized in some manner as soon 
as possible (it is suggested that the developer be required to 
retain sufficient topsoil to stabilize areas); 

c. Disturbed areas should be protected from stormwater runoff; 

d. Stormwater runoff velocities should b'e as low as possible; 

e. Sediment should be retained on site either through vegetative 
or mechanical measures. 

These principles have been developed by the SCS and towns should utilize 
the assistance of SCS through the Barnstable Conservation District in 
developing requirements for erosion control plans and in evaluating the 
erosion control plans submitted by developers. 



6. Similar to the erosion and sedimentation problems posed by construc- 
tion sites, the related activity of sand and gravel pit operations can 
also cause sedimentation problems. While most properly operated pits 
drain inwardly, abandoned pits and those that are operated improperly 
can have severe erosion problems. Towns should have an earth removal 
bylaw (either a town bylaw under Chapter 40 or a zoning bylaw under 
Chapter 40A) that regulates the operation of the pits according to best 
erosion control practices and which requires the reclamation of used sites. 
In addition, earth removal should be permitted only to a depth of four 
feet above mean groundwater elevation. A model bylaw is presented in 
Appendix C (SRPEDD) . 



2-92 



Runoff from Agricultural Uses and from Fertilizer and Pesticide Use 

The water quality problems from agricultural activities have been 
documented in many areas of Massachusetts. However, because agri- 
cultural activities are very limited here on the Cape, the 208 program 
did not conduct a specific water quality sampling program to determine 
the extent of this problem on Cape Cod. 

It has been estimated by the Soil Conservation Service that approxi- 
mately 150 acres of land on the Cape is devoted to commercial fruit 
and vegetable farming and approximately 1000 acres are active cranberry 
bogs. Small bogs are located in nearly every Cape town but the major 
active bogs are located in Barnstable, Yarmouth, Falmouth, Bourne, 
Harwich and Brewster. There are no commercial foresting or livestock 
operations on the Cape. There are, however, numerous golf courses, 
mapped on Map 5.2 in the draft plan, which are known to be substantial 
fertilizer and pesticide users. In addition, pesticides and herbicides 
are used for utility line areas, parks, cemetaries and roadsides. Other 
agricultural uses include commercial poultry farms, small vegetable farms, 
and backyard horses, cattle and poultry. The home use of fertilizers for 
lawns and gardens may also be a significant source of pollution (Long 
Island 208 Program) . 

Due to the limited nature of agricultural use on the Cape, the 208 water 
quality assessment did not specifically sample areas that may be affected 
by agricultural use or other uses that involve large amounts of fertilizer 
and/or pesticides. Further, the testing for toxic organics that might 
result from pesticide use is very expensive and beyond the funding 
capability of the 208 program. 

The Cranberry Experiment Station does conduct testing upon request. Sam- 
pling information from the Experiment Station, as discussed in the Draft 
Plan, indicates that pesticides used on the bogs generally become bound 
in the soils and do not pose a major threat to ground and surface waters. 
There also appears to be considerable self-interest involved in cranberry 
growers utilizing only the recommended amounts of pesticides. The 
Ocean Spray Cranberry Company, a cooperative used by major Cape growers, 
spot checks growers' crops to detect pesticide residues and to reject 
contaminated berries. (OCPC, 1978) 

The Division of Water Pollution Control, responsible for non-point sources 
of pollution such as agricultural activities under the Mass. Clean 
Waters Act, does not at the present time carry out any sampling program 
specifically for agricultural uses. If the DWPC receives delegation under 
the Federal Clean Waters Act for the NPDES program (as discussed in the 
Section on Runoff from Urbanized Areas and Construction-related Activities), 
it could establish a General Permit Program that would prescribe best 
management practices. DWPC could then conduct a representative 
sampling program and require compliance with the BMP ' s (similar to 
storm drain general permit program). At the present time, DWPC has 
made no plans to initiate such a general permit program. 



2-93 



With a general lack of water quality sampling information in this area, 
there is no evidence, at this time, that agricultural activities and 
the use of pesticides and fertilizers are causing a serious water 
quality problem on the Cape. The 208 program, therefore, recommends a 
two fold approach to these non-point sources as potential water quality 
threats: 

1. Further water quality testing to determine the degree of the problem. 

2. Use of best management practices (BMP'S) to prevent development of 
water quality problems from these sources. 

At the present time a number of agencies are involved and are responsible 
for the management of agricultural activities and pesticide use in 
Massachusetts. While none of the agencies is specifically responsible for 
establishing best management practices, certain agencies have been active 
in developing best management practices and in encouraging growers to 
utilize them. The University of Massachusetts Experiment Station in East 
Wareham has developed BMP's for cranberry growers and carries out an 
extensive education and information program. A similar function is per- 
formed by the Waltham Experiment Station for vegetable and fruit growers. 

The Soil Conservation Service directly assists farmers 
with specific problems and can prepare a "conservation plan" that 
analyzes the farmer's operations and can suggest the use of improved 
practices in the areas of erosion control, crop rotation, manure 
storage and application and irrigation. The Cranberry Experiment 
Station also helps individual growers on request. Along with the 
education activities of the University of Massachusetts Experiment 
Stations, the Barnstable County Cooperative Extension Service conducts 
its educational activities through workshops, providing educational 
pamphlets and managing the 4-H clubs. 

Growers that want to follow best management practices recommended by 
these agencies may have to invest in certain types of equipment such as 
irrigation systems for cranberry bogs. To assist growers in following 
a conservation plan prepared by SCS, the Agricultural Stabilization and 
Conservation Service (ASCS) , shares the cost (up to 50%) of practice 
establishment with growers up to $2,500/yr. Here on the Cape a committee 
of five local growers make recommendations on applications for these 
funds in cooperation with the SCS. In some cases, the ASCS funds are 
not sufficient to carry out a particular control measure. Under an EPA- 
Small Business Administration agreement, farmers may also obtain loans 
at an approximate 6 percent interest rate for a project certified by 
EPA as a pollution control measure (OCPC, 1978). 

Finally, in the area of pesticide use, the State Pesticide Control Board 
in compliance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 
Act (FIFRA) , as amended (PL 92-516), conducts courses and administers 
examinations for commercial applicators. All commercial applicators 
must be certified to use "restricted use pesticides" and the certification 
process involves the applicator demonstrating competence in the type of 
pesticide operation they conduct. 



2-94 



The 208 plan concludes that additional investigation of the water quality 
impacts of agricultural uses and the use of fertilizers and pesticides on 
Cape Cod is needed. The following recommendations address this problem 
and the importance of preventive management through the use of best man- 
agement practices: 

STATE ACTION 

1. DWPC and DEQE should investigate the water quality impacts of various 
agricultural activities in the state through an extensive sampling 
program. Based on the information gathered through such a sampling 
program and the assessment of present water quality information avail- 
able in this area, DWPC should evaluate the need for a general permit 
program. While such a program appears to be a good control approach 

for agricultural sources of pollution, there is not suffi cient inform- 
ation on the Cape Cod region to warrant a recommendation that a statewide 
general permit program is needed. 

2. Whether or not a general permit program is established, it would be 
extremely helpful if a formal system of coordination between agencies 
were developed and a single agency were charged with the responsibility 
for establishing and updating best management practices. DWPC would 

be a logical choice since it has responsibility for controlling non- 
point sources in the state. However, DWPC should rely on the expertise 
of the University of Massachusetts Experiment Stations and the SCS in 
establishing BMP's rather than duplicating the work of these agencies. 
A Memorandum of Understanding between these agencies could be the mechan- 
ism used by DWPC to gain the assistance of these agencies in establishing 
state BMP's and in providing ongoing coordination in this area. Further, 
these agencies along with the Barnstable County Cooperative Extension 
Service and County Conservation District should continue their educational 
and technical assistance activities following the BMP's adopted by DWPC. 

3. DWPC should work with SCS and the County Conservation District to en- 
courage any farmer who is causing a known pollution problem to abate the 
problem. Funds to conduct the necessary test to establish the source of 
a problem should be available for this purpose. Should the farmer fail 
to take abatement action after such encouragement, DWPC should order such 
action. 

REGIONAL ACTIO N 

1. The Barnstable County Conservation District along with SCS should 
continue to encourage growers to use best management practices. Since 
only voluntary compliance is required at the present time, the Conser- 
vation District should provide the technical assistance, through SCS, 
to growers to follow BMP's and to seek funding through ASCS to imple- 
ment BMP's. The Conservation Districts and SCS should also apply "peer 
pressure" to farmers that are causing a known pollution problem. This 
type of concerted encouragement and assistance should be succesful in 
obtaining voluntary compliance with DWPC approved BMP's. 



2-95 



2. CCPEDC should further investigate the potential water quality prob- 
lems posed by golf courses, particularly within the recharge areas of 
municipal wells and should develop an appropriate program of monitoring 
these sources of potential groundwater pollution. 

3. The Barnstable Conservation District should cooperate with the 
CCPEDC to further investigate the extent of agricultural activities on 
Cape Cod as well as large users of pesticides and fertilizers. 

4. CCPEDC should encourage DWPC to conduct further water quality 
sampling on Cape Cod to determine the water quality impacts of various 
agricultural uses and the use of fertilizer and pesticides. Should 
this information indicate that a substantial water quality problem 
does exist, CCPEDC should encourage DWPC to establish a general permit 
program for the agricultural uses in question. 

5. The Barnstable County Cooperative Extension Service (Cooperative 
with U. Mass. and USDA) should provide information on pesticide and 
fertilizer use to growers and homeowners that emphasizes mimimum use 
considering water quality concerns. 

LOCAL ACTION 

1. Conservation Commissions that suspect a specific agricultural use 
is causing serious degradation of a water body or the groundwater 
should request DWPC to take water quality samples in the area. If 
DWPC finds that the agricultural use is causing a pollution problem, 
it can order the owner to abate the problem under the authority of 
the Massachusetts Clean Waters Act. 

GROWER ACTION 

1. Cranberry growers, and other small farmers should strictly follow 
the BMP's provided by the University of Massachusetts Experiment Stations 
Technical assistance in following these BMP's can be obtained from SCS 
through the Barnstable Conservation District. 

2. Individual home garden growers should use the minimum amounts of 
fertilizers and pesticides needed to maintain a healthy garden. To 

the maximum extent possible, natural pest control methods should be used. 

3. Homeowners should contact the County Extension Service for advice 
in using pesticides and fertilizers. Location of home gardens should 
be as far away (preferably downgradient) from private wells and 
surface water bodies as possible. Excess amounts of pesticide and 
fertilizers should be stored for later use or disposed at the sanitary 
landfill (at some future time special disposal areas for such materials 
may be set aside at landfill sites) . The Extension Service should pre- 
pare a list of commonly used pesticides and state whether or not they 

are persistent, and whether they tend to move through soil to groundwater. 
Products which are preferred for use in a wellfield area, public or 
private, should be indicated. 



2-96 



Road Salt Storage and Application 

As stated in the Draft Plan, the use of sodium chloride, for deicing 
roads and highways, and the outdoor storage of road salts are two major 
sources of potential sodium contamination of groundwater supplies. 
During the public review period it has become evident that most towns 
do not store road salts in enclosed sheds and in fact, even the 
Massachusetts Department of Public Works (MDPW) has some outdoor 
storage facilities on the Cape. 

Chapter 85 Section 7A of the Massachusetts General Laws states "No 
person shall store sodium chloride, calcium chloride or chemically 
treated abrasives or other chemicals used for the removal of snow or 
ice on roads in such a manner or place as to subject a water supply or 
groundwater supply to the risk of contamination. The Department of 
Environmental Quality Engineering, hereinafter called the department, 
in consultation with the Department of Public Works, may issue regula- 
tions as to place or manner of storage of such chemicals and may, by 
specific order, in a particular case regulate the place where such 
chemicals may be used for such purpose. Any violation of this section 
or order issued hereunder shall be punished by a fine not to exceed 
fifty dollars per day." 

Regulations under this Act have been drafted by EOEA and suggested for 
consideration by DEQE. These draft regulations would require all towns 
to store road salt stock piles in a storage shed within one year of the 
issuance of the regulations. There has been considerable delay in 
adopting the regulations, presumably due to the lack of manpower needed 
for enforcement. 

The act also calls for persons using more than one ton of snow removal 
chemicals to report annually the amount of chemicals used and the amount 
of chemicals on hand. While DEQE has requested these reports from 
municipalities and large users, compliance has been lax. DEQE has made 
little effort to enforce this section of the Act or to follow up on any 
problems that may be indicated by the reports, again due to lack of staff. 

In Fiscal Year 1977, the MDPW appropriated $1,000,000 to provide assis- 
tance to towns to construct road salt storage sheds. Of the 400-500 
municipal storage sheds needed throughout the state only 30 sheds were 
funded with these limited funds. Priority was given to those towns where 
present storage practices have already caused water supply contamination 
or pose an imminent threat. While 7 of the 15 Cape towns applied for 
funds under this program, no Cape town was awarded funds for facility 
construction. While the MDPW will seek funds to continue this program, 
lack of sufficient funds will severely limit meeting the statewide need 
for sheds in a reasonable period of time. 

Many citizens also raised concern during the public review period over 
the application of road salts on the Cape. In discussing with the MDPW 
current application practices on Cape Cod, the 208 staff was informed 
that approximately 90% of the DPW Repair Section Crews apply a lower level 
of salt mixed with sand than is used in the rest of the state. It is 



2-97 



also recognized that there is a need for fewer applications of salt on 
the Cape due to the higher temperatures and less frequent perma-frost 
conditions. However, it is the MDPW policy that sand/salt mixtures be 
applied at the beginning of a storm to maintain a salt solution on the 
roadway that will facilitate plowing and to avoid the formation of a 
snow pack on the road surface that would be very difficult to remove. 
The application of road salt is not used to substitute for plowing but 
to maintain p]owable conditions. The MDPW also recognizes that traffic 
which tends to cause snow packing is less on the Cape and, therefore, 
fewer salt applications are needed than in other sections of the state. 

Route 6, a State maintained highway, runs near the top of the Cape's 
aquifer through most of its length, and is a major concern to a number 
of municipal wellfields. Other major state owned highways are within 
recharge areas. In addition, town maintained highways and roads also 
pass through the recharge areas of municipal wells and through areas 
relying on private wells. In fact, the MDPW uses only 1/3 of all road 
salts in the state, the remaining 2/3 is used by municipalities, busi- 
nesses and private individuals. Thus, further attention to municipal 
road salt storage and application practices is needed. 

The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Snow £ Ice Control Program 
of the MDPW (July 1978), includes a cost-benefit analysis of the MDPW's 
use of road salts. While there are substantial economic benefits to 
maintaining a high level of service through the present MDPW road salting 
practices, there are also costs that must be borne by the public of 
potential water supply contamination, higher repair costs for highway 
structures, corrosion damage to automobiles, contamination of water bodies 
and damage to vegetation. The general principles of this cost -benefit 
analysis can also be applied on the local level in municipal road salt 
usage. Careful reduction in the use of road salts as practiced by MDPW, 
can potentially reduce the costs of the town's road maintenance budget 
and can also reduce these other governmental and private sector costs. 

It is the conclusion of the 208 program that further efforts are needed 
to reduce the use and to minimize the effects of road salts, particularly 
in areas critical to groundwater supplies. The following recommendations 
suggest a program of action for the management of road salts as a serious 
non-point source of pollution: 

FEDERAL ACTION : 

Since the problem of snow and ice control plagues large sections of the 
U.S., primarily the northern states, EPA should continue to fund research 
into methods of reducing road salt use and into the impacts of road salt 
use on the environment. It is suggested that research into the impacts 
on ground and surface waters be conducted in cooperation with the USGS. 

STATE ACTION : 

1. The Mass. DPW should construct storage sheds for all of its road 

salt stockpiles on Cape Cod. (Truro, Harwich, No. Falmouth) In cases where 

a present outdoor stockpile is located on land not owned by MDPW (Truro, 



2-98 



Harwich) , the necessary land should be purchased, and a storage 
facility should be constructed within the next two years. Due to the 
Cape's reliance on groundwater for its sole source of drinking water, 
it should be considered a priority area for acquiring land on which 
to construct storage facilities. 

2. It is recommended that the MDPW continue its efforts to minimize 
the use of road salts, particularly on Cape Cod, and to stress the 
importance of careful supervision of road salt application. This 
supervision of maintenance crews can greatly reduce unnecessary 
reapplications of road salts and maximize the effectiveness of each 
application. 

3. DEQE should issue regulations under Chapter 85 Section 7A of the 
Massachusetts General Laws to require construction of municipal salt 
storage sheds where they are needed. In issuing its regulations, DEQE 
should consider requiring municipalities that have road salt stockpiles 
within present municipal well recharge areas, within potential water 
supply development areas or in areas relying on private wells, to either 
relocate the stockpile to a non-critical area or to construct a salt 
storage shed according to state specifications. Should the town choose 
to relocate the stockpile, an acceptable site should be chosen in 
coordination with the continuing 208 program and the stockpile should 

be placed on an impervious pad with an impervious cover. 

4. DEQE should require compliance with the provision of Chapter 85 
Section 7A requiring annual reporting by all major users. This inform- 
ation should be analyzed and possibly used for the development of salt 
application guidelines. 

5. It is recommended that the MDPW maintenance budget include additional 
funds to upgrade its present snow and ice control equipment, to maintain 
that equipment on an annual basis and to acquire land needed to construct 
salt storage facilities. According to the MDPW's Final Environmental 
Impact Statement $12,000,000 would be needed in the coming fiscal year 
and an annual allocation of $3, 750,000/year (an increase of approximately 
$1.5 million over the MDPW 1975-76 equipment budget), to maintain an 
efficient operational level capable of increased control over road salt 
application. It is recommended that the MDPW Commissioner seek these 
additional funds from the General Court. It is also recommended that 
the Cape Cod Delegation to the General Court support the appropriation 

of these additional funds and seek a priority for equipment improvement 
on Cape Cod due to its reliance on groundwater supplies. 

6. That the MDPW establish a regular program cf educational workshops 
for municipal highway maintenance personnel in proper road salt appli- 
cation and storage procedures based on the series of workshops held in 

/*i977 around the state. It is recognized that such workshops are not a 
regular part of MDPW activities, but these workshops could contribute 
greatly in standardizing and improving local practices in the use and 
storage of road salts. It is further recommended that the MDPW sponsor 
such a seminar on Cape Cod, on an annual basis, to encourage full local 
participation. The 208 staff will assist the MDPW in making arrangement; 
for the seminar. 



2-99 



7. It is recommended that the MDPW continue to seek funds to assist 
municipalities in constructing salt storage sheds and that priorities 
for these grants within the Cape Cod region be coordinated with the 
ongoing Cape Cod 208 program. 

8. It is recommended that the MDPW consider modifying drainage away 
from present and future municipal well recharge areas when road repairs 
or roadside landscaping is executed as part of the maintenance or repair 
project. It is also suggested that such drainage modifications should 
be executed as a preventative measure in particularly critical areas 
rather than as a response to the problem when a municipal well has ex- 
ceeded the 20 ppm state sodium limit. MDPW should consult with the 208 
agency in designing such modifications. 

9. In cases where contamination of a municipal well field is unavailable 
because of the lack of a suitable site to which runoff can be directed, 
the MDPW should build sealed basins to receive and evaporate salt- 
contaminated runoff. 

10. It is recommended that the state collective purchasing office estab- 
lish specifications, in coordination with the MDPW, for road salting 
equipment that can be accurately calibrated for application rate, to 
allow towns to purchase this equipment under the state purchasing system. 

11. The MDPW should continue to pursue and to fund research efforts as 
are currently underway with EOEA and USGS into the potential reduction 
of road salt use and into the environmental impacts of road salt use in 
the state. 

REGIONAL ACTION : 

1. CCPEDC shall assist the towns in identifying the recharge areas of 
municipal wells and to examine the need for reducing or eliminating road 
salt use within these areas. CCPEDC will also assist the towns in 
examining the need for modifying drainage systems within these areas, 
within staff capabilities. 

2. CCPEDC shall cooperate with the MDPW in reducing the use of road 
salts within the region, in sponsoring educational seminars for municipal 
highway personnel, in encouraging the structural changes in the drainage 
systems from state highways that threaten municipal well supplies. 

3. CCPEDC will assist the towns in examining present road salt storage 
facilities and application practices. CCPEDC will sponsor regional 
seminars and meetings if needed for highway maintenance personnel to 
exchange information and to learn improved methods. 

4. CCPEDC will work to educate the public on the need to reduce road 
salting for the protection of ground and surface waters, on the need 
to support additional town funds for equipment and operating budgets 
that will improve snow and ice control with reduced road salt use, and 
on the need to reduce driving speeds due to snow conditions. 

5. CCPEDC will assist DEQE in its enforcement of Chapter 85 Section 7A 
by encouraging towns to construct municipal salt storage sheds and by 
working with towns that wish to relocate salt stockpiles to non-critical 
areas . 

2-100 



6. CCPEDC will also assist the towns in seeking funds from the MDPW 
or other sources for the construction of municipal salt storage sheds 
in compliance with Chapter 85 Section 7A. 

TOWN ACTION 

1. It is recommended that the towns reduce or eliminate the use of 
road salts within the recharge areas of municipal wells. The use of 
sand only within these areas would require the posting of these roads 
as no salt roads. While it is recognized that there is a potential 
increased hazard in no salt areas, drivers generally travel more slowly 
on town roads than highway areas and such posting can help slow traffic 
down to a safe travel speed. It is also suggested that increased plow- 
ing in these areas may be needed to maintain safe road conditions. 

If the town chooses to only reduce the level of road salt use within 
these areas, it is suggested that they do not exceed the sand-salt 
mixture (approximately 50-59) utilized by the MDPW and preferably use 
mixture below the MDPW rate. It is also suggested that the town consi- 
der using calcium chloride/sodium chloride mix within these areas to 
reduce the number of applications needed. These reduction measures 
should also be adopted for areas relying on private well supplies. 

2. It is recommended that all towns appropriate funds for the construc- 
tion of municipal salt storage shed if present stockpiles are within the 
recharge areas of present wells or in potential water supply development 
areas. If a town chooses to move the stockpile to a non-critical area 
(not the preferred alternative) rather than build a storage shed, the 
relocation site should be chosen in consultation with the continuing 208 
Program. It is also recommended that all outdoor road salt stockpiles 
be placed on an impervious pad and kept under an impervious cover. The 
cost of a storage shed has been estimated by the MDPW to range from 
$18,000 for a 40' X 40* shed to $32,000 for a 96' X 40' shed. It should 
be further noted that salt storage sheds allow the town to reduce salt 
loss due to runoff, to minimize caking problems and to purchase the 
yearly supply at the lowest price possible without the problem of pro- 
longed outdoor storage. 

3. It is recommended that towns minimize the drainage of road salts 
into municipal well recharge areas by modifying drainage systems when 
major repairs to the road are planned. In particular cases where the 
drainage of a large area is presently discharged into the recharge area 
of a municipal well and is a suspected source of contamination, the town 
should provide funds to direct the drainage away from the recharge area. 

4. It is recommended that towns purchase the necessary snow removal 
equipment that can accurately control the level of road salt application, 
It is recognized that the most cost-effective approach to this recommen- 
dation is for towns to purchase salt application equipment that can be 
calibrated when replacing old equipment rather than special purchase of 
this equipment. Such equipment should be available for use in municipal 
well recharge areas as soon as possible. 



2-101 



Gasoline and Oil Storage and Spills 

The serious problem of potential gasoline pollution of the ground- 
water supply was demonstrated this past winter, when an underground 
storage tank in Truro leaked over 3,000 gallons of gasoline near 
Provincetown's major water supply wells. Extensive water quality 
monitoring and pumping tests now indicate that the wellfield is 
threatened with contamination from the spill and very expensive clean- 
up operations are needed to remove the gasoline frofif the area. 

For the most part, gasoline leakage has been regarded as primarily a 
fire or explosion hazard as gasoline can move with the groundwater 
into underground facilities such as basements or sewers. It must be 
recognized that gasoline and oil leaks and spills also pose a major 
threat to drinking water supplies, both public and private wells. 
Even a very small amount of gasoline or oil can contaminate a water 
supply well and is very difficult to remove. As the Cape's popula- 
tion continues to grow, the various underground and above ground 
sources of such contamination will proliferate. 

Contamination of groundwater supplies can result from leaks in cor- 
roded steel tanks, mechanical damage in a storage system or spillage 
during transport of the liquid. Of major concern to the program is 
the underground storage of gasoline and oil since leaks in underground 
tanks are the most difficult to detect and may go unnoticed for a pro- 
longed period of time. 

Underground gas and oil storage tanks are found at many locations in- 
cluding all gas stations (averaging three 10,000 gal. tanks per sta- 
tion), fuel oil companies and highway department garages. Many homes 
also use underground tanks (500-1000 gal.) for home fuel oil storage. 

Under Chapter 148 Section 13, (MGL) the board of selectmen must issue « 
license to use land for a building or other structure in which flam- 
mable materials are stored. Under this law, the Department of Public 
Safety, Board of Fire Prevention Regulations (FPR) also requires an 
application for permit and inspection of any storage tank for flam- 
mable or combustible liquids at the time of installation or reloca- 
tion. These permits are issued by the town fire chief and are kept 
on record at the local fire department or town hall. These permits 
must be renewed annually. 

At the present time, most towns do not require annual inspections of 
the tanks nor do they require replacement of the tanks after a certain 
time in the ground. In addition, towns do not issue permits for home 
fuel oil tanks as required by the regulations. In general, tanks are 
used until they rust out. 

The average life of a steel tank is about 20-25 years depending on the 
corrosiveness of the area. Cape Cod is considered a highly corrosive 
area and the life span of a steel tank should be considered to be less 
than 20 years without protective measures. 



2-102 



There are two procedures that can prolong the life of a tank approxi- 
mately 15 years. The first is using sacrificial cathodic annodes , 
where magnesium annodes at the ends of the tank will corrode instead of 
the tank. This same principle is used on steel hulled ships. The 
other is by electrically isolating the tank from the surrounding area 
by means of non-conducting bushings in the tank construction. These 
devices can be costly and even with these protective devices ; engi- 
neering studies have shown that 50% of steel tanks fail due to corro- 
sion. 

The use of fiberglass or fiberglass coated steel tanks is, therefore, 
highly recommended since fiberglass is not affected by external condi- 
tions which produce corrosion in steel tanks. Fiberglass is also 
resistant to internal corrosion from condensation, sludge deposits or 
bacterial activity. When first introduced there were problems with the 
installation and gaging of fiberglass tanks. Proper installation of 
fiberglass tanks is particularly critical. However, after ten years of 
use, installation methods appear to be safe and effective and a reinfor- 
cing plate at the bottom of the tank helps prevent cracking from repeating 
gaging. Ideally, fiberglass tanks should last permanently. While the 
initial cost of the fiberglass tanks is higher, there are no maintenance 
costs (such as upkeep of cathodic protection systems) and there are sav- 
ings in tank replacement costs. 

Strict monitoring of the tanks should be enforced so that if a leak 
does occur, it will be detected and the tank repaired or replaced 
immediately. Under a recently issued Rule 51 of the Fire Prevention 
Regulations, accurate daily inventory records must be maintained by 
all garages, service stations, and other locations which store gaso- 
line or other motor fuel. These regulations issued in September, 
1978 are as follows: 

"Accurate daily inventory records by means of dip sticking shall be 
maintained and reconciled on all flammable or combustible liquid 
underground storage tanks for indication of possible leakage from said 
tanks or piping. The records shall be kept on the premises available 
for inspection by any member of the Department of Public Safety, head 
of the fire department or his designee, and shall include, as a mini- 
mum, records showing type of product, daily reconciliation between 
sales, use, receipts and inventory on hand." 

This regulation will be helpful in assuring compliance with Chapter 
21, Section 42 of the Mass. General Laws which states: 

"Any person who, directly or indirectly, throws, drains, runs, dis- 
charges or allows the discharge of any pollutant into waters of the 
Commonwealth, except in conformity with a permit issued under section 
forty-three; or who violates any provision of this chapter, any valid 
regulation, order or permit prescribed or issued by director there- 
under; or who knowingly makes any false representation in an applica- 
tion, record, report of plan, or falsifies, tampers with or renders 
inaccurate a monitoring device or method, required under this chap- 
ter, (a) shall be punished by a fine of not less than two thousand 



2-103 



five hundred dollars nor not more than twenty-five thousand dollars for 
each day violation occurs or continues, or by imprisonment for not more 
than one year, or by both; or (b) shall be subject to a civil penalty 
not to exceed ten thousand dollars per day of such violation, which may 
be assessed in an action brought on behalf of the commonwealth in any 
court of competent jurisdiction." 

The new regulation for maintaining daily inventory records is the most 
accurate means of detecting leaks. The daily preparation of inventory 
control records will assist the operator as he will be able to recog- 
nize and determine the source of unaccountable losses and thereby re- 
duce his stock losses. Thus, such an inventory procedure achieves a 
high level of safety and pollution control. A model inventory report 
form is included in Appendix D . 

If a tank leak is suspected, a more accurate test system is required. 
In the past an air pressure testing technique has been used. This 
test is permissible for pipes and pipe fixtures, but should not be used 
on tanks containing inflammable liquids. With the air testing there is 
danger of causing a tank rupture (by putting more than 5 psi in the 
tank), and the expulsion of gasoline through normal openings. The re- 
sults are also very inconclusive. Air pressu're varies greatly with the 
temperature and with vapor pressure within the tank. Any pressure loss 
in tanks, even if the loss is due to liquid loss, depends on the volume 
of air in the system. Air pressure testing should be discouraged. 

A more accurate indicator of liquid volume loss in an underground tank 
is the Kent -Moore testing system. This method, developed by the Ameri- 
can Petroleum Institute, is very precise, although complicated and 
more expensive than the air pressure test. Briefly, the tank is filled 
with gasoline, then a recirculating system keeps the temperature equa- 
lized. This makes it possible to calculate the expansion or contrac- 
tion factors of the tank, and the tightness of the tank is determined 
quickly. A leak of 0.05 gal. in one hour can be determined accurately. 
This test can cost between $1 ,000-$3 ,000 per tank. It is used only 
when there is an indication of a leak found in the daily inventory 
records. Such a test can be performed by the Mass. Petroleum Council. 

It is recommended that improved control of underground gasoline and 
oil storage be implemented through the following actions: 

STATE ACTION 

1. It is recommended that the Fire Protection Regulations require the 
installation of only fiberglass tanks or fiberglass coated steel tanks 
for the bulk underground storage of gasoline (over 1,000 gal.) in all 
groundwater aquifer areas in the Commonwealth (or statewide if aquifer 
area approach too complex) . 

2. It is recommended that the State Building Code prohibit the under- 
ground storage of home heating oil tanks unless they are made of 
fiberglass or are coated with fiberglass. 



2-104 



3. It is recommended that Rule 51 of the Fire Prevention Regulations 
require the annual or semi-annual inspection of all inventory records 
by the local fire department or its designee. 

REGIONAL ACTION 

1. CCPEDC should assist fire departments in educating individuals who 
store oil and gasoline underground to the importance of keeping accu- 
rate inventory records from both a safety and water quality perspec- 
tive. 

2. CCPEDC should encourage local fire departments to carry out a regu- 
lar inspection program of inventory records. 

3. CCPEDC should locate and map all existing underground bulk storage 
tanks as potential sources of non-point source pollution, particularly 
in the recharge areas of municipal wells and Private Well Protection 
Areas . 

4. CCPEDC should encourage towns to adopt the following recommendations 
for local actions. 

LOCAL ACTION 

1. Fire department personnel should carry out annual or semi-annual 
inspections of inventory records kept in conformance with Rule 51 of 
the Fire Protection Regulations. If the fire department has limited 
personnel, it may wish to designate the board of health for this 
function (the board of health would have to be willing to take on 
this added responsibility) . 

2. Towns should pass a town by-law that allows installation of only 
those underground gasoline or oil storage tanks that are fiberglass or 
are coated by fiberglass (for both commercial and domestic uses). 

3. Towns should require permits for all gasoline or oil storage tanks, 
(both commercial and domestic) . 

4. Towns should pass a town by-law that requires the replacement of 
all steel tanks 15 years after the installation of the tank with 
fiberglass tanks unless the owner can prove through a Kent -Moore test 
that the tank is not leaking. However, only one-year extensions 
should be granted since such tanks could corrode at any point causing 
a serious leak. Most towns have kept records on the installation 
dates of each bulk storage tank through the licenses issued by the 
board of selectmen. 



2-105 



Salt Water Intrusion 

Salt water intrusion is not, at the present time, a major water quality 
problem on Cape Cod. Only the Town of Provincetown has a significant 
intrusion problem in a public water supply well located in Truro (Knoll's 
Crossing) . The potential for salt water intrusion becoming a problem in 
other public wells and in private wells, however, does exist and may be 
an increasing concern as the Cape's population grows. 

As discussed in the draft plan, the USGS Comprehensive Study of Cape Cod's 
Groundwater will provide the information needed to avoid the problem 
of salt water intrusion in the future. The model will provide 
information on the location of the fresh/salt water interface, how water 
supply pumping affects the location of the interface and what future 
actions may do to the location of the interface. Actions of particular 
concern that could affect the fresh/salt water interface are discharging 
wastewater to the ocean and installation of major public water supply 
wells near the shore. In general, the effect of such actions would cause 
a localized intrusion problem. 

The USGS computer model prepared as part of the USGS comprehensive study will 
be available in October, 1978. CCPEDC has successfully obtained a $6,000 
increase in its budget to work with the USGS in FY 79 to utilize the 
results of the study to assist towns in analyzing specific water supply- 
related problems. It is recommended that this cooperative arrangement 
between the USGS be continued (see "Water Supply Management" section for 
further discussion) and that any anticipated problems of salt water 
intrusion be further evaluated using the USGS model. In this way any 
proposed action that may cause such a problem can be assessed for its 
impact on the fresh/salt water interface. However, towns can generally 
avoid the potential problem of salt water intrusion by following the 
recommendations provided in the "Local Action" section that follows. 

FEDERAL ACTION 



USGS should continue its Cooperative Agreement with CCPEDC to fully 
utilize the results of its comprehensive study of the Cape's groundwater. 
Through this Cooperative Agreement the information of USGS can be made 
available to the towns and their water supply consultants. 

STATE ACTION 

1. DEQE's Water Supply Division should fully utilize the information 
provided by USGS in evaluating local requests for the installation or 
increased pumping capacity of public wells near the shore to avoid salt 
water intrusion. 

REGIONAL ACTION 

1. CCPEDC should seek continuing funds for a Cooperative Agreement with 
USGS. Under this agreement CCPEDC would continue to monitor USGS installed 
wells and cooperate with USGS in maintaining the computer model, provide 
technical assistance to towns and their consultants based on the informa- 
tion developed in the Comprehensive Study. 



2-106 



2. Further information and recommendations on the problem of salt 
water intrusion should be developed as part of the Regional Water 
Supply Management Plan recommended in the "Water Supply Management" 
section of the final plan. 

LOCAL ACTION 

1. Towns should preferably dispose of all wastewater on land, as 
discussed in the "Sewer Construction" section of the final plan, to 
maintain recharge and avoid potential salt water intrusion. 

2. In the development of future water supply wells, towns should 
utilize locations within the "Potential Water Supply Development Areas" 
outlined on Map 5.6 to avoid salt water intrusion. Even within these 
areas, which are all at least 10' above sea level, certain locations 
near the shore may still cause salt water intrusion depending on the 
wells' pumping capacities. 

3. Any public well that is to be installed near the shore should be 
analyzed by the USGS for its potential to cause salt water intrusion. 
The town's water department should request of CCPEDC that such an eval- 
uation be conducted in cooperation with the town's consultant. 



2-107 



Vessel Discharges 

Vessel discharges came under the jurisdiction of EPA in 1972, when the 
first regulations for "marine sanitation devices" were issued. These 
regulations prohibited overboard discharge of sewage into the navigable 
waters of the United States under the authority of the Water Pollution 
Control Act (Section 13). This was not implemented, primarily because 
of the lack of available pump-out facilities. 

Revised regulations were issued in January 1976, incorporating the 1972 
amendments to the Water Pollution Control Act. The amendments authorized 
the Administrator to designate certain waters as no-discharge waters. 
Waters not so designated were considered to be treated effluent waters. 
On Cape Cod, all of the inland lakes and ponds are no-discharge areas, 
in which marine heads must be sealed at all times. 



Federal guidelines have been issued establishing performance standards, 
and setting effluent discharge limitations for marine sanitation devices. 
These regulations, which were summarized in the draft plan are enforced 
by the U.S. Coast Guard, which certifies units for conformance. A fed- 
eral task force recently evaluated all available devices, and recommended 
the use of maceration-chlorination devices to meet these treatment re- 
quirements. These devices grind the sewage and add chlorine bleach as 
a disinfectant. Concern has been expressed over the reliability of this 
method since it depends upon the owners' ability and willingness to oper- 
ate it properly. Even when operated satisfactorily, these devices may 
not control substantial degradation from congested harbor areas. 

Total prohibition of discharges is the only absolutely reliable method 
of control. This can only be accomplished where there are adequate on- 
shore facilities. Chapter 91, Section 59B of the Massachusetts General 
Laws authorizes the Division of Water Pollution Control to require pump- 
out facilities and dock toilet facilities before issuing a license to a 
marina. The Division has not used this authority, however, because it 
is considered that federal regulations supercede it. Under the federal 
regulations a state may apply for no-discharge status for areas used 
for swimming, shellfishing and fish spawning. In order to do so, the 
state must demonstrate to the EPA that adequate on-shore pump- out facil- 
ities are available and that complete prohibition is necessary. 

Data recently obtained by the Division of Water Pollution Control indi- 
cate that numerous harbors were actually SB or SC in the summer of 19 76. 
These data and shellfish testing results from the DEQE should be used 
to evaluate the causes of existing harbor problems to the extend pos- 
sible. In some cases problems appear so serious that corrective measures 
should be instituted immediately. It is apparent, however, that con- 
siderable time will pass before the effectiveness of enforcing the new 
EPA guidelines can be evaluated. 



2-108 



The following actions are, therefore, recommended: 

l'liDliRAL ACTION 

1. The U.S. Const (Juard should provide adequate manpower to implement 
Marine Sanitation Devices regulations on Cape Cod. 

STATE ACTION 

1. DWPC should work with DEQE to utilize all available data to analyze 
the degree to which vessel wastes are the cause of segment pollution 
problems . 

2. DWPC should consider using its authority to require the construction 
of pumpout facilities where vessel wastes are determined to be a serious 
problem. 

3. DWPC should require all 201 facilities plans to address the problem 
of vessel wastes and recommend construction of appropriate facilities 
as part of the 201 facilities plan. 

4. CZM should coordinate with DEQE and DWPC in analysis of available 
data to determine what areas should be recommended, to the EPA 
administrator as no-discharge waters and should work with EPA, DWPC 
and marina owners in implementation of this recommendation as necessary. 

REGIONAL ACTION 

1. The CCPEDC should work with the towns in developing and utilizing 
local authorities for control of boating wastes, including: 

--board of health regulations 

--harbormaster regulations (Ch. 102, Section 21-27) 
--zoning bylaws (Chapter 808) controlling water uses 
--motorboat laws (Chapter 90B, Section 15) 

2. Barnstable County Health Department should continue to investigate 
complaints of shellfish contamination and public health threats posed to 

swimmers due to vessel discharges, at the request of local boards of health 

LOCAL ACTION 

1. Towns should work with CZM, DWPC, DEQE and Barnstable County Health 
Department in investigating sources of coastal water contamination and 
take appropriate actions to close swimming areas and/or prohibit dis- 
charges through the mechanisms described under "regional action." 



2-109 





sbojb aSjcBi{osip oil pusmuiooay 


oa 


CO u u u 
CO O u u 




CQ U 

^ u 




u u u 
u u u 




u u u 

CQ CO U 




UUUU 
U U £3 C 


S3TT.IXTDBJ anoduind apiAO-i^ 




saoqxeii 




ui XouEdnooo iBoq xo-iauo;) 


oa 


03 U U O 




CO u 




u u u 




u u u 




UUUU 






■IDHVlDSTtl 'IHSSHA 


- — 




iioTsnJiin osrino Xhui imp 


























CO 


co U U U 




CO U 




u u u 




u u u 




uuasifi 




siioi 1.11: pioAi: 01 [ opoiu S!)SI1 os ll 
























Nt)fsmu.Ni nUlVM J/JYb' 
























s^irei siouao^s bbULoasqij. 


< 


< U C_) u 




< < 




u u u 




u u u 




UUUU 




punojcSaapun jo asri aainboy 
























Xio 5 3uixosb§ pajLoas 




jo spjooaj; Xjo^usaut utb^utb^ 


U 


uuuu 




u u 




u u u 




u u u 




UUUU 


3DVH01S 3NI10SV3 S 110 






y , dW8 


03 


oa u u < 




CQ 00 




03 U U 




u u u 




UUUU 




XBj;nq.xnoijc§B jo asn aHB-inooug 
























said iqavjl'S $ pUBS JO UOTIBUIBX 




-D3j: ajinbsj; § uoisoaa xo^auoo 


oa 
oa 
oa 


CO U CO < 
CO O CO u 
03 CO CO < 




U CO 
CQ CO 
CQ 03 




CO u u 
CO u u 
CO u u 




u u u 
u u u 
u u u 




UUUU 
UUUU 
UUUU 


sbs.ib snoiA^sdiui aiuiTg 


UBxd xo-^^uoo uoiso-ta sjcinbsy 




uoTT.Bjq. 




-XT-jui 90Bj.ins Sutsbsjdut Xq 


oa 


CQ U O U 




CO CQ 




CO u u 




u u u 




UUUU 




SUTBJCp UIJLO0.S JO OSn 9ZTUITUTIaI 
























SUIBJp ULIO}S aoj 




uii.'JlSoj;^ ituijoj x Ba9US D qSno-iqa 


oa 


CO U 02 U 




CQ CQ 




u u u 




u u u 




t_) CJ Q Q 




oojojus puB s tC iwg qsixq^asg 






















ddONfld H31VMWH01S 




S IITJP UB I JLO^TUO^ 


U 

03 
< 


u CJ u u 

uuuu 
< u oa co 




u u 

CQ CO 
CO 03 




u u u 

U U CO 
U CQ CO 




u u u 
u u u 

CQ CO U 




UUUU 

U U CQ CQ 
UCOQQ 


SutxoXosj: aoB-inooug 


XBSOdsip 9}SBM PTIOS 9ZTXBUOT2sy 




suoiq. 




-BxnSoa; o^b^s aoaojua Xxaoiaas 


03 


CQ U CO CQ 




CO CO 




U co u 




u u u 




UUUU 
























SIlIddNVl AdVIINYS 




3§bj:ois ut ixbs pBox aaoas 


oa 


CO u u u 




U CO 




u u u 




u u u 




UUUU 




SB9.IB Xxddns jcgibm oq.BAT.id ^ oxx 




~ 


CQ 


CQ U U U 




U CO 




u u u 




u u u 




UUUU 




-qna ui s^xbs pBOJ jo osn oonpoy 
























HDWiOis 5 Nouvonddv nvs avoa 


is 

u +■* ^ 
03 w a) 

£ ^ o 
















(A 




















+J 




J, SNOIIVCINHNWODHH 

i2 ^ 












o 

•1-1 




o 
o 




2 S w 












■M 
•H 




cm 






^ 'H - 












£ £ 




o 




'^ oo W 












3 O 


o 


(rt 




» o & 1 


£ c3 








CD 




■i-i -H 


tn 


•M CD 




CD O a> rt £ 














O -*-> 03 


03 


*J O 03 




Q. „» «, £ u 




1/1 03 — 




CD 




P3 £ 




{3, £ O 


^ 


M -O O j£ 








X -C +-» 




o 




—i o 




C- O -H 


U 


CD E ^ 






^H O O 




03 




03 »H 




O E "+^ 


c 


C 03 <U 




— »- «" 6 2 




H h 3 




U-i 




J3 +-> 


CO 


>s'H 


•H 


O -h O o 




— 3 r- S '-' 


X 


03 03 C 




f-> 




03 


H 


^ O t/j 




>H -iH -H 




O 03 ?-, ^ j 


WJ 


+J . - o 




3 


X 


5- > 


U 


O ■— ' ft 


c 


c-o > ^ 




o 


C ^h <D -H 


>, 


CO 


4J 


CD fi 


< 


•■-, Cv, o 


3 


O M ,c 






1— 1 


<u 03 a </> 


4-) 




•H 


+-> 


c, 


E > 


i-H 


-O £. CD 3 




o 


E O 03 O 


•H 


uTT 


*J 


ra x (^ 


2 


£ CD -H 


cd 


CD O tr, £. 




<D .»-> £ tf -7 


o 


C -H P. f-( 


1—1 


1—1 


c 


S 4-> £ 


i— i 


•H £ T3 


> 


P«»H 




C C ^ ^ ^ CU 


PJ 


O fi <^ CD 


rt 


03 -O 


03 


-O -H O 




3 




O O 'O "O 






^ o 


3 


•»-> c 


3 


£ .-H O 


U 


a) o 


x 


H > «) O 




C O «j <* o 2 


X 


•H 4-> C >-4 


ry 


</) 3 


& 


3 03 


i— t 


l/l "O'rt 


— 


O CD N M 




O Q. £ ° U o 


W3 


> t/> a> -h 




03 O 




C 3 >■> 


S 


03 CD E 


^ 


> -a t- -m 




2 *T •« & o: 


O 


C -H Cl, O 

W I o w 


s- 


o u 


U 


^ O* OO 


o 


cd a o 


o 


CD £ E E 




--H -t3 


8) 


u u 


Q> 


U u 


^ 


^ 3 E 


&Q 3 •!- iH 




> C ^> o +-> •> 


O C 


1 1 1 1 


<J 


1 1 


4-> 


1 ^H O 


o 


O T3 O 


O 


i 1 £ £ 




c o ^ ' H c ?* 


•H 03 




rt 




r^ 


■rH E 


u 


e a> o 


V- 


•H -H 




UJ Z ^^ w 


CO -J 




3s 




^ 


< UJ 


UJ 


h a: a 


-* 


s s: 










2-110 





















SB9JB aSjBqOSTp OU pU9UIUI009^ 


o 

o 

o 


C C O O i-i o o 
O O O — I O O <-l 

O O *— 1 r- 1 i— 1 C i— 1 


+ 

1 


+ 
+ 

+ 


+ 
+ 

+ 


+ 
+ 

1 


+ 
+ 

+ 


1 

1 


+ 
+ 

+ 


+ 
+ 

+ 


+ 
+ 

+ 


+ 
+ 

4- 


S3T3.III012J inodumd gpTAcij 




saoqjLBq 
ui XouBdnooo iBoq xo-iiuoo 






SHOdVIDSICi 13SS3A 




uoTsnj.aui osrtBo abui aeqa 

SUOTT.DB pTOAB 0} lOpOUl SDSfl 3Sfl 


c 


o o o o o o o 


+ 


+ 


+ 


+ 


+ 


+ 


-r 


+ 


+ 


+ 


NOismiiNi aaivM nvs 




s>piBq. oSb-iois ssBx^jiaqij 
punojSj.3pun jo osn aainbay 


c 
o 


O O O O trt O O 

o o o o o o c 


+ 
+ 


+ 
+ 


+ 
+ 


+ 
+ 


+ 
+ 


+ 
+ 


+ 
+ 


+ 
+ 


+ 
+ 


+ 
+ 


jio ^ ouixosbS paaoas 
jo spaooaa A\ioq.usAui uibiutb^ 


3DV»0IS HNI10SV9 § 1T,0 




XB.in:txnDT.i2B J° 8sn aSB-inooug 


o 

o 
o 
o 

o 
o 


O O O O rH O O 

O O O <NJ t-h O o 

O O O CM t-h c o 

O O O r-t H O O 

o o o o o o o 
c c o o o o o 


+ 

+ 
+ 
+ 

+ 
+ 


+ 

+ 

+ 
+ 

+ 
+ 


+ 

+ 
+ 
+ 

+ 
+ 


+ 

+ 
+ 
+ 

+ 
+ 


+ 

+ 
+ 
+ 

+ 
+ 


+ 

+ 
+ 
+ 

+ 
+ 


+ 

+ 
+ 
+ 

+ 
+ 


+ 

+ 
+ 
+ 

+ 
+ 


+ 

+ 
+ 
+ 

+ 
+ 


+ 

+ 
+ 
+ 

+ 
+ 


Slid "[SA^-lS § pUBS JO UOiq.BUlBX 

-33X ojcinbaj. $ uoisoas x°- I ^uo3 


SB9JB SnOIAJLOdlUI IIUIT-T 


UBxd xo^auoo uoiso.19 ajiinboy 


uotq.Ba:a 
-XTJUi ooBjjns SuTSBoaoux Xq 

SUTBjp UIJLOaS JO 9Sin OZTUIIUT^ 


SUIBJLp UXJL01S aOJ 

iubjSojj aiui-iad X BJ - 9U9 D qSnoaqa 
sojLOjus puB s tc jwa qsTxqBq.S3 








ddONTttJ dSIVMNdOdS 






sxXTJP UB I -to^iuow 


o 
o 
o 
o 


o o o o o o o 

O O O «-• o o o 
o o o rsi i— i c <— i 

O O O iH O O O 


+ 
+ 
1 
+ 


+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 


+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 


+ 

+ 
+ 
+ 


+ 

+ 
+ 


1 

1 
1 

1 


+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 


+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 


+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 


+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 


SuixoXooj: a^B-inooug 




XBSodsip a^SBM PXX 0S 9ZTX BUO T^ 9 d 




SUOT} 
-BXn§90: 91Bq.S 90J0JU9 Ai%otjlis 


STIIddNVl AHV1INVS 




spaqs 9§BJLoq.s ui ixbs pboj: a-iois 


o 
c 


o © © © o o © 

O O O O O O (N) 


+ 
+ 


+ 
+ 


+ 
+ 


+ 
1 


+ 
+ 


+ 
1 


+ 
+ 


+ 
+ 


+ 
+ 


+ 
+ 


SB9J.B /X^dnS JL91BM 9^BATJCd $ OTX 

-qnd ut sq.XBS pbojc jo 9sn aanpay 




3DVd01S $ NOIlVDIlddV I1VS QVOH 



























o 

.. c£ 

CO H 

H Z 

U O 

< U 

S, U 

Qi 

-J 3 

<£ O 
H oo 
Z 



Z •— • ' — » 

o o • 

CC Cu J-> 

•— i i c 

> z o 
zoo 



co 

U 
< 



U 
O 

co 



ca 

<ll -r-> 

ZD O 

-a u 

C i 
CO 



+-> 
rt 
i— i 
3 
&< 
O 

c 
o 

■H 

3 3 

4J o 

rO O 

CO Cu 

i i 






a3 



a; 

3 



U 

o 

a, 



e o 



C > 



£ 1/1 O 'rt 



60 
C 
■H 
(/I 

:: 
c 



i/i 

c 
o 



O rt 



3 
o a 



c •>-< 



B 
B 
o 






o 

a 

rt C 
o rt 

O M 



u a; — i H 



co 



E- 
< 

a: 
cu 
a 
>— i 
co 
z 
o 
u 

a: 

3C 
O 



— ' -O 

rt -rt 

C </) 

o rt 

•H d> 

3 

■*-■ i— • 

• h rt 

+j c 

W o 

C -rt 



0) 
1— ( 
rt 
o 
(^ 

x<+rt 



•rt JD 

jo rt 

rt *-> 

a. 3 

o o 

y u 

o o 

rt rt 



B 
O 

c 
o 
o 

0) 
>\ 

u 

0) 



o 

1—1 

o c 

c o 

x ■<-< 

0) rt 



CtH 

o 



c 
u 

E 
O 
X — • 

♦-» a. 
rt e 



i— I +-> (J O -rt i— I 



03 -rt 

o •>-> 

'H (/) 

+j c 



o 
a. 



X jo 
3 3 



rt 

• H O 

Cm -m 
Crt C 

UJ j= 

1 U 
V 
H 



re 



IN 

O +J 

o 

at <u 

■yi Crt 

rt ^ 

CO LU 



U 

c 
o 



o 

c 

0) 

• H 

c 
o 
a 

c 

rt 



o 

c 
o 
+J 



u 

c 



1/1 



•rt Z 

C I 

o 



1/1 

c 

O -rt 

O l/l 

c 

i/) o 

<u u 

•iH 

c 

•rt d 

1—1 1— I 

O D. 

cx z 

CO UJ 

O CO 

1 I 









<u 








> 








•r-i 








iJ 


tr, 






j 


rt 




a) 


oo 






> 


o 


•3 




•i-i 


z 


O 




•rt 




■rt 




rt 


•■*-. 


rt 




ao 


M 


rt 




o 


o 


i— i 




z 


^> 


rt 


• • 






> 


o 


1 


1 


o 


> 




1 


a; 


•M 






m 


rt 






rt 








Wi 


p* 






















o 


rt 






•rt 


O 






■rt 




(U 




rt 


<D 


> 




H 


> 


•rH 







■H 


■rt 




T3 


+-> 


■H 




•rt 


•H 


or, 


0) 


(/I 


W 


O 


> 


c 


o 


c 


•H 


o 


& 




4-> 


u 




X 


Bp ^ 




H 


H 


!/) 


H 


o 


o 


O 


0) 


^ 


> 


Cu 



■rt -rt 
O O 



2-111 



0) 
DO 

c 

O 

cw 
O 

<D 

3 

•rt 

c 



a> 

+-> 
rt 
3 
i— i 
rt 
> 

0) 

<u 
rt 

rt 

to 

*-> 
o 
rt 
C 

E 



0) 
•(-> 
rt 
rt 
(U 

-a 

o 



o 

rt 



DO 



co 
i 



• » rt 

rt> C- 

u E 

rt •— i 
a, 

E rt 

>-> o 



i— i ore 
ro z s: 



o 
o 
co 



i i 

o fO 



Water Conservation 

Cape Cod is underlain by a vast groundwater resource, which has long 
been believed to be capable of providing the area with an unlimited 
supply of clean fresh water. In fact, most municipal water departments 
have found the area to have tremendous potential for wellfield develop- 
ment and have provided local residents with high quality water at 
relatively low cost. 

Water conservation measures and water use bans have been necessary on 
Cape Cod only under unusual circumstances. Occasional water shortages 
have been experienced when delivery systems were unable to meet peak 
demands during drought periods. In isolated cases the development of 
water delivery systems has not kept pace with construction, and restric- 
tions on the rate of development have been necessary. The only water 
shortage due to limitations of the groundwater resource rather than the 
delivery system has occurred in Provincetown. As discussed in the "Water 
Supply" section, this area has the most shallow and fragile aquifer on 
the Cape . 

Cape Codders cannot take the continued abundance of clean fresh water 
for granted, however. The groundwater resource must be carefully man- 
aged to avoid adverse environmental impacts of groundwater withdrawal, 
including saltwater intrusion and pond level lowering. Essentially, 
all used water must be returned to the aquifer, and large watershed areas 
around public supply wells must be protected to maintain drinking water 
quality. The cost-effectiveness of water management can be greatly in- 
creased by reduced water use. Water conservation is, therefore, an 
important element of a water supply management program for Cape Cod. 

Water conservation affords both economic and environmental benefits. 
Reduced per capita water use will result in the sharing of fixed capital, 
operation and maintenance costs by a larger number of users. The cost 
of public water to each user will, therefore, be reduced. Water users 
will realize additional cost savings in the form of energy saving. 
Heating water for showering, dishwashing and clothes washing is a major 
household energy use which can be substantially reduced through the use 
of water conservation fixtures. 

Water conservation can help to improve groundwater quality and avoid 
septic system failure. A reduced flow through the septic system pro- 
vides for longer wastewater retention in the septic tank. This allows 
greater time for bacterial digestion of wastes, producing an improved 
quality of effluent flowing into the leach facility. Lower wastewater 
flow helps to extend the life of the leach facility by slowing the pro- 
cess of leach field clogging due to continual wetness. Finally, reduced 
hydraulic loading can help avoid septic system failures in areas with 
marginal soils. Draft Chapter 4 recommends that water conservation be 
implemented in all problem areas as part of an abatement program. 

Environmental impacts resulting from heavy municipal pumping could be 
directly reduced by water conservation. As discussed in the Environ- 
mental Impact Assessment section of draft Chapter 4, public water supply 
wells create cone-shaped depressions of the water table, with the lowest 



2-112 



point at the well site. A pond located near the well could experience 
water level lowering which could be destructive of its recreational and 
aesthetic values. If the cone of depression extends to the shore the 
well could become contaminated with salt. These impacts can become most 
severe as a result of increases in both population and water use during 
the summer, when there is negligible recharge of the water table by 
precipitation. For these reasons, water conservation can have parti- 
cularly beneficial impacts during the summer months. 

Reduced water use can also help avoid creation of sewer needs. Wherever 
wastewater is discharged to the ground, the water table is raised, or 
mounded. High density housing, particularly in areas with poor soils 
or high water table could cause mounding to the point that septic 
systems become flooded. This would threaten water quality as well as 
public health. A reduction in water use could mean the difference in 
such an area between continued use of on-site systems or construction of 
costly sewer collection and treatment systems. 

Finally, lower per capita water use will result in smaller watershed 
area needs for a given population. This lowers the cost of watershed pro- 
tection through direct acquisition, and results in fewer restrictions on 
individuals' use of their property. The water quality benefits of water 
conservation must be discussed with caution, however. Calculations of 
allowable housing density within watershed areas described in draft 
Chapter 3 were based on an assumed water use to provide dilution. Should 
water use be substantially reduced, density figures will have to be 
lowered correspondingly. Fewer houses per 40,000 will be allowable, in 
order to maintain the same nitrate loading rate. 



2-113 



Water Use 

The major use of water on Cape Cod is for indoor and outdoor domestic 
or residental uses. Indoor uses include drinking water, bathing, dish- 
washing, laundry and toilet flushing, and outdoor uses include car 
washing, filling swimming pools and watering gardens and lawns. Indoor 
domestic uses are broken down as illustrated in Figure 2.2. 

FIGURE 2.2 

INDOOR DOMESTIC WATER USE 



Toilet 40°i 



Bathing 26% 




Kitchen 4.5% 

Lavatory 7% 
Cleaning 1.5% 

Laundry 21% 



Source: Massachusetts Water Supply Policy Statement (MWSPS) , May 1978, 
p. 164. 



While outdoor uses are a significant factor in 
use, they are difficult to quantify. The nati 
indoor water use is 45-65 gpcd and the average 
eastern Massachusetts is 75 gpcd (MWSPS) . In 
States, the average outdoor use is between 10- 
departments and districts report per capita co 
considerably. This variability in per capita 
to another is a common pattern throughout the 



overall domestic water 
onal average domestic 

per capita water use in 
the Northeastern United 
100 gpcd. Cape Cod water 
nsumption rates that vary 
consumption from one town 
state. (MWSPS) 



A partial explanation for the difficulty in estimating per capita con- 
sumption on Cape Cod is the fluctuation in seasonal and year-round 
occupancy ratio. A straight division of water use by number of users 
would not be possible unless hotel and guest occupancy are known. 

Reducing Domestic Wat er Use 

Since domestic water use is the major water use on the Cape, it is here 
that major water conservation activities should be directed. Since toi- 
let flushing and bathing are the most significant water consuming 
activities in a household, increased efficiency in toilet and bathing 
fixtures can have an important impact on overall home water use. In 
addition, "luxury" water consumption uses such as swimming pools and 
garbage disposals, or above average lawn watering can also be signifi- 
cant water consuming uses. There are a number of simple and inexpensive 
mechanical devices that can reduce residential water use substantially. 



2-114 



TABLE 2.8 



WATER SAVING DEVICES COSTS § SAVINGS 



DEVICE 



COST 



WATER USE 



POTENTIAL 
WATER SAVINGS 



Toilet 



Regular 


$ 60.+ 


5-6 gal/flush 


Water Saver 


60.+ 


2.5-5 gal/flush 


Displacement 






Plastic 






Bottles, etc. 


.50-$10.+ 


4.5-5.5 gal/flush 


"Dams" 


$3 . -$6 . 


3.5 gal/flush 


Retro Fitting 






Tank 


$75. 


2-2. 5 gal /flush 


Showerheads 






Regular 


$o . "!|)Zj . 


3-8 (15) gpm 


Low Flow 


$4. -$15. 


2 . 5 gpm 


Inserts 


$.50-$l.S0 


2 . 5 gpm 


Flow Restrictive 






Sink Aerators 


$l.-$2.00 


2 .8 gpm 


Meter 


$150-$500+ 
5 M 





30-50% 

8-10% 
25-30% 

66-75% 



65-75% 
50% 



40-50% 
20-30% 



Source: Massachusetts Conference on Water Conservation Proceedings, 
EOEA, June 1977. Updated by New Resource Group, 1978. 



2-115 



Water saving devices can be installed on existing toilets, showerheads 
and faucets or the homeowner can purchase new water saving models to 
replace old fixtures. Certainly, water saving fixtures should be used 
in all new construction. These devices can not only reduce water bills, 
but also, in the case of flow reduction showerheads, can produce sub- 
stantial energy savings by reducing the need for hot water. Water and 
energy savings usually repay installation costs very quickly. See 
Table 2.8 for the costs and water savings of these devices. 

In addition to utilizing mechanical water saving devices, homeowners 
can modify wasteful water use habits in their everyday activities. 
A list of these water saving activities is included in the section 
"Homeowner Actions." While these activity changes are not as easily 
measurable, substantial water savings can be accomplished with only 
minimal homeowner effort. 

While domestic water use is the major concern on the Cape, there are 
numerous commercial uses, particularly in the summer months, that place 
considerable demands on local water utilities. Motels, hotels, restaur- 
ants, laundromats and car washes are heavy water users. For hotels and 
motels substantial water savings can be realized by installing the same 
water saving devices suggested for the individual home. Local chambers 
of commerce may be able to purchase these fixtures for their members at 
bulk rates. For those motels and hotels that are connected to a 
sewerage system savings will be doubled as sewer user fees are based on 
water use. High energy costs for frequent guest showers can also be 
substantially reduced. 

Restaurants should install water saving toilets. While retrofitting 
in a single family home may not be cost effective in the short-term, it 
could be cost effective in heavily used rest rooms. Restaurants can 
also reduce water consumption by only serving water at the customer's 
request. A number of Cape Cod restaurants are currently following this 
policy. Water is saved not only in that many customers do not drink 
the water served, but more important, many gallons are saved in not 
having to wash the unused water glasses. 

Generally, the use of laundromats is not actually an increase in water 
use since the users would be doing the same amount of laundry at home. 
Laundromats only centralize this use. However, in the summer, thousands 
of visitors increase laundromat use enormously. Often this increased use 
requires daily cesspool pumping resulting in very high septage flows. 
While there does not appear to be any simple solution to this problem, 
towns could require all new laundromats or existing laundromats replacing 
old machines, to utilize water-saving washing machines (usually front- 
loading models) . 

Car washes generally use greater amounts of water per car, from 60-80 
gallons, than is used for this purpose at home. There are systems that 
recycle and filter the water used reducing the per car use to 6-8 gallons. 
The operator saves money by reducing the use of water and energy. Towns 
could require recycling of water in any new car wash established in the 
town. (OCPC, 1977) 

At the present time, there are no large industrial water users on Cape 
Cod. It has been the policy of the CCPEDC in its economic 
development activities that it would encourage the development of non- 
2-116 



polluting industries that do not require large amounts of water for 
their operation. (Regional Growth Policy Statement, 1976). This policy 
is consistent with the findings of the 208 planning program. It is also 
recommended that towns do not attempt to attract heavy water using 
industries . 

Water Utility Role 

Another important approach to reducing water use, is the installation 
of water meters for all service hookups to a water supply utility. 
All Cape water departments, districts and companies should have a 
policy of 100% metering of all services. Metering can provide the water 
utility with valuable information on water use to assess the need for 
modifying rate structures to charge heavy users. Metering the many 
commercial establishments, particularly motels and restaurants, that 
are known to use high volumes of water in the summer months, may be 
of particular value. 

Water utilities should also consider modifying their rate schedule. 
At the present time some utilities have a decreasing block rate 
schedule, the more water used, the cheaper per unit rate. Thus, small 
users are, in effect, subsidizing the large users. In metered areas, 
it has been shown that increased rates alone can substantially reduce 
lawn and garden watering. However, since the cost of water is low as 
compared to other utility costs and most rate increases are relatively 
small, increases can not be expected to effect any major reduction in 
domestic water consumption. However, it appears that a policy of 
increasing block rates can somewhat reduce residential water consumption 
and can substantially reduce industrial/commercial demands. 

The problems of developing an equitable rate schedule for Cape Cod are 
beyond the realm of this study. In many areas, water rates are based 
on changes in seasonal use. In some cases, rates are based on winter 
water use by customer. In other cases, a summer surcharge is applied 
to all users. Where so many dwellings are unoccupied during the winter, 
a seasonal approach based on winter use would seem infeasible. 
Seasonal rates, however, do have merit and further examination of this 
problem in cooperation with the Cape's water utilities is needed. 

A further water saving activity that can be carried out by water 
utilities is a leak detection program. Even the most leak-proof system 
loses approximately 6% (Mass. Conference) and some lose 20-40% from the 
distribution system. Obviously, such losses are very costly and wasteful 
Equipment is available to detect leaks. A leak detection program must 
be coordinated with a repair and maintenance effort to be effective on 
a long-term basis. Such a program is cost-effective and can pay for 
itself in water saved. 

Regulatory Approaches 

A comprehensive water conservation effort can be aided by the town or 
water department (when appropriate) adopting certain regulations. Such 
regulations include requiring that a certain percent of total lot area 
remain in natural vegetation, allowing lawn watering only at certain 
times of the day, requiring major water users such as golf courses or 
schools to have a private water supply for all watering and irrigation 
purposes. Regulations requiring the use of water-saving devices in 
new residential and commercial construction could also be adopted. 

2-117 



Public Education 

Public education is a critical element of a comprehensive water conser- 
vation program. In recent years, the Association for the Preservation 
of Cape Cod and New Resource Group have carried out a water conservation 
education program that has included slide shows, displays and distributing 
water conservation information to interested groups and citizens. While 
these private groups have done an admirable job in bringing water con- 
servation information to Cape Cod residents, public education efforts 
should also be carried out at the state and federal levels and locally 
by water departments and districts. 

The state and the federal government have the resources to prepare edu- 
cational materials, and television spots that could be helpful in widely 
publicizing the need for water conservation. While water departments 
and districts have limited budgets, they can play a strong local role in 
public education. By mailing water conservation information with water 
bills, water commissioners and superintendents speaking to community 
groups and at schools, water utilities can focus attention on local 
water needs and the importance of water conservation. 

It is the conclusion of the 208 Program that water conservation must be 
an integral part of an effective water resource management program. The 
following recommendations are designed to effect a long-term conserva- 
tion effort on Cape Cod. 

FEDERAL ACTION 



The Environmental Protection Agency should conduct a public education 
program to raise public awareness of the need for water conservation. 
Media coverage should be obtained nationally, public education films 
and publications should be available to interested citizens and groups 

STATE ACTION 



1. The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs and the Water Resources 
Commission should also engage in public education efforts, recognized 

as essential to a successful water conservation effort in the Massachu- 
setts Water Supply Policy Statement. 

2. The State Building Commission should require through the State 
Building Code, that all new construction or replacement of plumbing 
fixtures employ water-saving fixtures. The EOEA and Water Resources 
Commission should take an active role in encouraging these changes. 

(The State Building Code presently requires the use of a low flow shower- 
head--3 gpm--for energy saving purposes.) 

3. The Water Resources Commission should conduct a study of water supply 
pricing by both public and private water utilities to possibly result in 
legislation on water pricing. Such a study would assist water utilities 
in adopting equitable pricing arrangements, protect water users, help 
form the foundation of sound financial management of water utilities, and 
potentially encourage water conservation. 



2-118 



4. Changes in the State Environmental Code should include provisions 
for encouraging water-saving devices. Title 5 presently allows com- 
posting toilets with the approval of the local board of health but 
requires the burial of the compost material resulting from the system. 
DliQI: will soon conduct a demonstration program examining ;i number of 
compost toilets and grcywater systems. The program will evaluate how 
the systems function and whether pathogens remain in the compost mate- 
rial. It is hoped that the results of this study will provide the 
necessary guidance to further modify the environmental code to en- 
courage the use of these water-saving devices. 

5. The discharge of over 1 million gallons of fresh water per day by 
the State Fish Hatchery in Sandwich is not consistent with the State's 
water conservation policies. It is recommended that the State Division 
of Fisheries and Wildlife should institute a means of recycling and 
reusing this water to eliminate this discharge. 

REGIONAL ACTION 

1. CCPEDC should support the efforts of the conservation groups and 
assist local water utilities in educating the public to the need for 
water conservation. 

2. CCPEDC should assist towns in seeking funds to carry out a 
community-wide water conservation effort that may include purchase 
and distribution of water saving devices and public education. 

3. CCPEDC should assist water utilities in examining present rate 
schedules as part of regional and local water supply planning activities 

4. CCPEDC should continue its policy of encouraging only those indus- 
tries that are not large water consumers to locate on Cape Cod. 

LOCAL ACTION 

1. All municipal buildings, including schools should utilize water- 
saving devices. While the town, in many instances, does not actually 
pay water bills for these buildings, considerable water savings could 
be gained by installing low flow showerheads and modifying toilets to 
reduce flow. Energy savings afforded by the low flow showerheads in 
schools would pay for the fixtures in a very short time. 

2. The towns should adopt bylaws that require water-saving devices to 
be installed in all new construction (residential, commercial, indus- 
trial) to be enforced by the town building inspector. Such a model 
regulation is presented in Appendix E which was adopted as part of the 
Plumbing Code of Fairfax County, Virginia. 

3. The towns should require that all new laundromats and existing 
laundromats replacing old machines, use water saving washing machines 
(through town bylaw regulation approved by DEQE) . 

4. The townsshould require any new car wash to use a recycling system 
(through town bylaw) . 



2-119 



WATER UTILITY ACTION 

1. All water utilities should require 100°6 metering of all services 
and should have a program to upgrade meters to assure accuracy. 

2. During the summer months, water utilities should require all users 
to minimize lawn watering. 

3. Water utilities should consider requiring large users of non-potable 
water for lawns such as school playing fields and golf courses to have 
private wells to recycle water on-site. This would help recapture the 
nitrate from fertilizers used on the site and reduce public water supply 
demands and watershed protection needs. 

4. Water utilities should keep accurate records of water use by 
category of user—residential, commercial and industrial. 

5. Water utilities should examine water use patterns and present rate 
schedule to determine whether restructuring of the rate schedule is 
needed. 

6. Water utilities should conduct a regular leak detection program as 
part of their long-term repair and maintenance activities. 

7. Water utilities should work to become the focal point for water 
conservation activities in their town. Information materials on water 
conservation should be made available to interested citizens and groups. 
Water utility personnel and commissioners should speak to local com- 
munity and school groups and the media to raise public awareness of the 
need to conserve local water resources . 

8. Water utilities should consider encouraging or requiring homeowners 
and motel owners with swimming pools to fill their pools prior to the 
peak water use period. 

BUSINESS ACTION 

1. All businesses, commercial and industrial, should make a concerted 
effort to reduce water consumption by the use of water-saving devices, 
by recycling when possible and by conducting a "water audit" to deter- 
mine where in the firm's operations, water could be conserved. The 
New Resource Group will conduct such an audit free of charge and assist 
the business in determining an appropriate water conservation program. 
With the large number of motels on the Cape which are heavy summer users, 
it is suggested that the Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce and local Chambers 
make a special effort to encourage motel owners to install water-saving 
showerheads and to modify toilets to conserve water in each motel unit. 

2 All restaurants on Cape Cod should serve water only at the customers 
request. It is recommended that the Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce make 
available, as a public service, table cards that state the restaurants 
water conservation policy and the importance of conserving the Cape s 
water resources. 



2-120 



3. Builders and contractors should utilize low flow showerheads (al- 
ready required by State Building Code), low flow toilets and faucets in 
new construction. These fixtures generally cost no more than regular 
models and can be a selling point to many conservation minded buyers. 

HOMEOWNER ACTION 

1. Individuals building new homes should install water-saving devices. 
Homeowners should install low- flow showerheads and fixtures and modify 
toilets to reduce flow. If any fixtures must be replaced, new water 
conservation models should be used. Water conservation not only saves 
in water, and heating bills, but if a home has a septic system, water 
conservation can help prolong the life of the system, particularly in 
problem areas. 

2. For individuals who are experiencing problems with their on-site 
disposal system, a composting or other innovative system may help to 
solve this problem and afford considerable water savings. A composting 
system requires no water and, therefore, can conserve up to 40% of the 
average household water use. These systems discussed on page 4-28 of 
the draft plan still require the use of a greywater system and, to be 
approved for new construction, the lot must be able to accommodate a 
conventional system. 

3. All plumbing leaks should be fixed promptly. A continual leak can 
waste more than a 100 g/d.* 

4. Machine washing of dishes or clothing should be done with a full 
load. Water conservation clothes washers are available.* 

5. Avoid running tap water for washing dishes, cleaning fruits and 
vegetables, brushing teeth.* 

6. Keep a container of water in the refrigerator for drinking to avoid 
running tap for cold water.* 

7. Wash the car using a bucket of water rather than keeping the hose 
running. Only use the hose for final rinsing.* 

8. Water gardens and lawns in early morning to reduce evaporation and, 
thus, increase the amount of water that reaches plant roots. Watering 
during the day can also burn the lawn because the water drops magnify 
the sun's intensity.* 

9. Leave grass about 2" high to hold dew; this will also shade roots 
better than a closely cut lawn. Heavily mulching a garden also prevents 
soil drying. Both of these suggestions help reduce the need for watering, 

10. Minimize lawn area, retaining as much natural vegetation as possible. 
Not only does this minimize the need to water grass but greatly reduces 
the amount of fertilizer needed and helps to maintain the character of 
Cape Cod.* 

11. Use native plants and shrubs that do not need more than natural 
rainfall to thrive. Nursery and garden suppliers can provide inform., 
tion on native varieties.* 

*EPA, 1977. 

2-121 



\ 



Management Agencies 



The 208 final plan is required by PL 92-500 to recommend to the Gover- 
nor of the Commonwealth the designation of an agency or agencies to 
implement all elements of the recommended plan. Most of the comments 
on Chapter 6 of the draft plan, "Areawide Management Structure" indi- 
cate general agreement with the management program presented. This 
management structure would rely primarily on designating existing 
local authorities to implement recommendations in the areas of land 
use, structural facilities planning, construction and operation and 
non-point sources of pollution. The CCPEDC would be designated to 
carry out regional planning, program development and coordination, 
and to coordinate water quality monitoring, testing and analysis. 
The management program outlined in the draft plan also calls for 
further investigation into the possibility of strengthening the re- 
gional role in those areas now under the authority of the towns. 

Throughout the planning program there has been considerable public 
support for increasing regional authority for water quality manage- 
ment. As anticipated, a number of those commenting on the draft plan, 
both individuals and plan review committees, indicated support for a 
stronger regional role in a number of program areas, particularly 
facilities planning, construction and operation. 

It is clear that the potential for increasing regional authority over 
wastewater management on Cape Cod needs further attention. It is 
recommended that the CCPEDC create a Water Resources Advisory Council 
to advise the Commission on conducting its responsibilities under the 
208 final plan and in considering the expansion of its role, or the 
role of another regional agency(ies) , in the continuing water quality 
management program. 

Water Resources Advisory Council 

It is recommended to the CCPEDC that the Water Resources Advisory 
Council be composed of a member from each Cape Cod town and repre- 
sentatives of Cape-wide organizations listed in the "Public Partici- 
pation" section of the final plan. Members from appropriate regional, 
state and federal agencies, also listed in the "Public Participation" 
section, would be asked to serve as advisory members of the council. 
Town members would be members of the local water quality advisory 
committees (discussion follows) who would serve as a liaison between 
the continuing regional program and local efforts to implement the 
plan recommendations. 

The CCPEDC would charge the Advisory Council to fulfill the following 
responsibilities : 

1. To assist the staff in maintaining contact with local boards 
through the local water quality advisory committees and with represen- 
ted organizations. 

2. To review and comment on all 208 staff prepared reports including 
the annual update of the 208 plan. 



2-122 



3. To review and make recommendations on local requests to use the 
USGS groundwater model through the continuing cooperative agreement 
between USGS and CCPEDC. 

4. To review all related local and regional applications for federal 
funds (such as 201 facility planning grants) for 208 plan consistency 
and to advise the CCPEDC on applications under the A-95 review process. 

5. To support and encourage the implementation of the 208 plan recom- 
mendations. 

6. To provide the 208 staff with local information needed for special 
planning projects and to update the 208 plan. 

7. To serve as a forum for resolution of water quality-related conflicts 
at the request of towns or CCPEDC. 

8. To investigate possible means of strengthening or creating a 
stronger regional role in wastewater management on Cape Cod. Local 
support for such actions must be fully explored as well as the need 
for legislation to allow such regional authority. Advise the CCPEDC 
on findings and recommended actions. 

9. To encourage broad public participation in the continuing 208 pro- 
gram by sponsoring public meetings, workshops and seminars. 

The purpose of the Water Resources Advisory Council is to maintain the 
valuable mechanism of public participation provided by the 208 APAC. 
The 208 plan is not a static document but must be changed and updated 
to meet new needs and demands. The invaluable contribution of citi- 
zens in formulating this final plan must continue to be an essential 
element in the 208 program. Through the Water Resources Advisory 
Council, this vital link with local boards and interested citizen 
groups can keep the 208 plan a dynamic and meaningful tool for guid- 
ing water quality management efforts in the coming years. 

Local Water Quality Advisory Committees 

Intra-town coordination of boards, departments and committees involved 
in water quality-related activities is essential to the implementation 
of the 208 plan. The desirability of creating inter-departmental 
water quality committees was demonstrated by the activities of the 
local 208 review committees. It has become apparent that lack of such 
coordination has been a major impediment to the development of public- 
ly-acceptable 201 facilities plans for Cape Cod communities. 

It is recommended that each town create a water quality advisory com- 
mittee, by town meeting vote, comprised of a representative of each of 
the following boards and departments (where applicable) : 

--board of selectmen 
--board of health 
--planning board 



2-123 



--conservation commission 

--water commission 

--sewer commission 

--highway or engineering department 

--department of public works 

One of the members of the committee should serve as the representative 
to Water Resources Advisory Council. The responsibilities of the 
committee would be as follows: 

1. Serve as the local contact for CCPEDC in water quality planning 
issues. 

2. Coordinate local efforts to implement 208 recommendations. 

3. Meet at least once annually to review the 208 plan and make recom- 
mendations for revisions. 

4. Cooperate with CCPEDC in continuing 208 planning efforts and imple- 
mentation projects. 

5. Participate in town 201 planning projects and make recommendations 
to the Water Resources Advisory Council on 201 "plans being reviewed 
for consistency with the 208 plan. . 

Management Functions 

To develop an effective areawide wastewater/water quality management 
program certain basic functions must be performed. These basic func- 
tions and the agencies designated by the 208 plan to perform these 
functions are as follows: 

Planning, Program Development and Coordination 

It is recommended that CCPEDC establish a water quality planning staff 
which can continue the 208 areawide water quality management program 
(financial arrangements for this program are discussed later in this 
section). To advise the CCPEDC in managing the continuing 208 program, 
it is recommended that CCPEDC establish a Water Resources Advisory 
Council (described above) . Staff activities to be carried out under 
this function include: 

Updating 208 Plan - Annual updates of the 208 plan are required by 
PL 92-500. The Water Resources Advisory Council will assist the staff 
in preparing the update, will review and comment on the update and ad- 
vise CCPEDC on its acceptability. For federal grant eligibility, 
treatment facility proposals must be consistent with the 208 plan, so 
that revisions to the plan can be very significant to the towns. 

Local Assistance - CCPEDC staff assistance has already been utilized 
by a number of towns and should be expanded as the program continues. 
The two proposals that have been accepted and funded by EPA for the 
first year of the continuing program are oriented to providing techni- 
cal assistance to help towns implement the plan recommendations. Such 
technical assistance to towns can include drafting model regulations, 



2-124 



sharing technical data, conducting training sessions for local offi- 
cials, coordinating the flow of information among towns and other 
levels of government, adapting the recommendations of the 208 plan to 
specific town problems, assisting in consultant negotiations, review- 
ing consultant reports and publishing information materials. 

Advocacy - Another aspect of this function is that of advocacy for 
the Cape Cod perspective before state and federal agencies. Since 
state and federal agency authority will continue to exceed that of 
regional and local organizations, it is important to maintain lines 
of communication, which can be used to influence other levels of 
government to take actions which are supportive of Cape Cod's water 
quality goals and needs. Such advocacy can be accomplished by staff 
working with other agency staff or through formal channels directly 
with the agency involved or through the Cape's delegation to the 
General Court . 

Research - While research funds are limited, this function would in- 
volve the staff seeking funds to have research conducted into such 
areas as improving septic systems and demonstrating innovative waste- 
water management techniques. It also involves keeping up to date on 
new research findings and relating these findings to Cape Cod prob- 
lems. 

Coordination - Special projects, such as the development of the USGS 
ground water model, require coordination between Cape Cod towns and 
outside agencies. Regional planning efforts in the area of water 
quality and water resource management also require coordination be- 
tween the Cape Cod towns. In addition, there is a need to coordinate 
both regional and local activities in such areas as economics, coas- 
tal zone management, natural resources, etc. with water quality con- 
cerns. These coordinative functions can best be performed at the re- 
gional level through the CCPEDC. 

Monitoring, Testing and Analysis 

The need for a comprehensive water quality monitoring program was dis- 
cussed in the draft plan, Chapters 3 and 5. While a number of local, 
regional, state and federal agencies are presently conducting testing 
programs, no single agency has the resources to conduct all of the 
necessary monitoring functions. A key element in this management plan 
is the coordination of local, regional, state and federal agencies 
that are presently conducting testing programs ana the determination 
of need for additional testing facilities. 

Each of the following agencies conducts testing in Barnstable County: 

Town Boards of Health - problem identification; sample collection 
(in some cases tests are performed by private engineering 
firms) . 

Barnstable County Health Department - bacteriological and chemi- 
cal water analysis; public health surveillance. 



2-125 



Department of Environmental Quality Engineering: 

Division of Water Supply - public water supply, chemical 
analysis . 

Southeastern Regional Office - shellfish monitoring. 

Division of Water Pollution Control (DWPC) - coastal seg- 
ments and effluent monitoring. 

Division of Fisheries - dissolved oxygen/temperature pro- 
filing in stocked trout ponds. 

U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) - water table monitoring, zone of 
transition monitoring, special source studies, Otis sand 
filterbed study, sanitary landfill plume studies. 

Development of a central data bank and periodic data analysis are two 
important coordinative functions which are not presently being per- 
formed. CCPEDC should assume these responsibilities as the designated 
areawide water quality planning agency. The CCPEDC should move to 
develop a comprehensive monitoring program and seek funding for neces- 
sary additional testing programs. 

Structural Facilities Planning, Construction § Management 

The major regional concern in structural facilities planning and manage- 
ment is the ensurance that local projects are consistent with the area- 
wide plan. The Mass. Clean Waters Act states that "The Administrator 
shall not make any grant for construction of a publicly owned treatment 
works under section 201... except for works in conformity with such 
(areawide) plan." The following discussion describes the recommended 
legal-institutional mechanism of implementing this requirement in the 
Cape Cod region. 

Several alternatives were considered in the development of the draft 
plan, ranging from direct regional authority to construct, operate and 
maintain sewerage systems to a regional role limited to technical assis- 
tance and coordination. The former was eliminated in the draft plan 
because of adverse public comment and the unlikelihood that such a 
major change requiring new legislation could be implemented in the for- 
seeable future. Greater public interest was expressed in an option 
that would designate the county to receive 201 funds and contract with 
the towns to construct, operate and maintain facilities. This would 
virtually guarantee consistency with the 208 plan. It was concluded 
that for the immediate future town construction, operation and mainte- 
nance of treatment facilities with regional technical assistance and 
review of plans is preferable. 

It is recommended in the "Sewer Construction Projects" section that the 

towns be designated as 201 agencies for the purpose of construction, 

operation and maintenance of single treatment systems. Water pollution 

abatement districts are also recommended for formation and future 
designation in Buzzards Bay and South Sagamore. 

Consistency with the 208 plan is to be accomplished through inter-agency 
cooperation established in a memorandum of understanding between DWPC, 



2-126 



DEQE, EPA and CCPEDC. The main provision of the memorandum would be 
that the agencies agree to adopt the 208 policies in issuing grants, 
permits or orders pertaining to construction of treatment and 
disposal facilities and that they notify CCPEDC in advance of all ac- 
tions taken in these areas. DWPC is designated as the lead agency for 
coordination with CCPEDC on 201 grants projects. 

The CCPEDC, through its Water Resources Advisory Council, is to pro- 
vide a determination of consistency between facilities plans and the 
areawide plan prior to final funding approval. 

The towns are to coordinate with the regional Water Resources Advisory 
Council through local water quality advisory committees. The local 
committees are to make recommendations to the Council on revisions of 
the 208 plan and on 201 facilities plans being reviewed by the Council 
for consistency with the 208 plan. In the case of a town which fails 
to constitute a water quality advisory committee meeting the require- 
ments of the 208 plan, the Water Resources Advisory Council is to as- 
sume the responsibility for plan revision and 201 facility plan ap- 
proval . 

The effectiveness of this management arrangement in assuring consis- 
tency with 208 plan is to be evaluated in the first five years, and 
if it is ineffective, stronger regional authority is to be considered. 

Non-Point Source Management 

Authority for the control of non-point, sources of pollution is now 
distributed between a number of town boards and state agencies. While 
adequate authorities exist to implement the controls recommended by 
the 208 plan, these agencies need to dedicate considerably more effort 
and resources to the problem of non-point source pollution. 

As discussed in sections of the "Non -point Source Controls" discussion, 
the Division of Water Pollution Control has regulatory authority over 
non-point sources under the Mass. Clean Water Act. Since DWPC is pri- 
marily concerned with controlling point sources with its limited 
staff, it has put little emphasis on non-point source controls. Cer- 
tain other state agencies have authorities in controlling non-point 
sources that are presently not being exercised. 

In addition, while certain regulatory approaches are also available 
to local boards including boards of selectmen, planning boards, boards 
of health and conservation commissions, these opportunities for im- 
proved control in this problem area have been largely overlooked. 
Specific responsibilities for improving non-point source control are 
assigned in the following section "Designated Management Agencies." 
It is also recommended that the local water quality advisory committees 
assume a coordinative function in insuring that local boards implement 
the 208 plan recommendations in non-point source control. 

While there have been public comments during the planning program that 
a stronger regional role in non-point source management is needed, 



2-127 



such as establishing a regional health code, or regional authority 
for insuring local enforcement of Title 5 and the state sanitary land- 
fill regulations, such authorities need further examination by the 
Water Resources Advisory Council. 

Land Use Management 

Land use management should continue to be primarily a local responsi- 
bility. With the increased information and technical resources pro- 
vided by this 208 plan and regional planning staff, towns can continue 
to rely on their planning boards and conservation commissions as their 
land use management agencies. The proposed regional water quality plan- 
ning staff should work closely with these local boards to help them 
adapt 208 land use proposals to specific town conditions. By utiliz- 
ing these existing legal and institutional structures, the towns can 
take immediate action to implement the 208 land use management program. 
Again it is recommended that the local water quality advisory committee 
take a leadership role in activating appropriate local boards to imple- 
ment the 208 recommendations. 

While there have been occasional suggestions that a regional land use 
regulatory authority is needed, there seems to be very little support 
for such an authority even in water-related land use matters. Unless 
significant changes take place in public attitudes in this area, it is 
anticipated that regional responsibility will rest with providing tech- 
nical assistance and encouraging local actions that are consistent with 
regional plans. 

Designated Management Agencies 

In accordance with the regulations for "Preparation of Water Quality 
Management Plans," 40 CFR, Part 131, the 208 areawide plan recommends 
the following designations of management agencies to carry out the 
recommendations of this plan: 

Federal Agencies 

Environmental Protection Agency 

--provide 201 funding (in cooperation with CCPEDC and DWPC) , 
supervise planning, construction and operation of structural 
facilities, in accordance with the 208 plan 

--provide adequate funding for 208 plan implementation and 
continued planning 

--conduct public education to encourage water supply and water 
quality protection 

--encourage full implementation of RCRA by promulgating regula- 
tions and seeking additional funds for full implementation of the 
Act. 

--encourage improved non-point source control by states by re- 



2-128 



quiring states to establish General Permit Programs when given 
NPDES responsibility 

--continue funding research into non -point source control tech- 
niques 

--adopt 208 funding policies, sewer service areas, and criteria 
for 201 projects. 

--continue to utilize USGS in reviewing hydrologic impacts of 
proposed sewer facilities 

USGS 

--continue cooperative agreement with CCPEDC to: 

--retain all water quality and quantity information in cen- 
tral location in cooperation with CCPEDC 

--assist in establishing procedures for landfill and sewage 
treatment plant monitoring 

--assist CCPEDC in regional water resource planning efforts 

Soil Conservation Service (USDA) 

--assist towns in developing criteria for erosion control plans 
and in reviewing erosion control plans submitted by developers 

--assist in establishing best management practices for agricul- 
ture in cooperation with the Barnstable Conservation District 
and DWPC 

State Agencies 

Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 

--insure consistency between 208 plan and state water resources 
policy and other related state environmental programs and regu- 
lations 

--conduct public education programs, in cooperation with the 
Water Resources Commission, to encourage water supply and water 
quality protection 

--investigate and encourage methods of reducing solid waste 
generation in the state through such approaches as a state 
bottle bill and requiring businesses to reduce packaging 
materials 

--develop a septage treatment policy to guide towns and state 
agencies in facilities planning projects 



2-129 



--seek and appropriate adequate funds for DEQE to investigate 
problem areas and enforce Title 5 on Cape Cod. 

Division of Water Pollution Control (DWPC) 

--supervise construction and operation of structural facilities 

--set 201 priority list in cooperation with CCPEDC 

--cooperate with CCPEDC in evaluating condition of Cape Cod ponds 

--establish state hazardous waste disposal facility 

--investigate landfill leachate collection and treatment technologies 

--establish and enforce a General Permit Program for storm drains; 
designate Cape Cod as a General Permit Program Area 

--serve as lead agency in establishing and enforcing BMP's for 
agricultural activities and coordinate other agencies involved in 
agricultural management. 

--adopt and implement 208 criteria for 201 studies 

--give funding priorities to 2 08- re commended sewer facilities 

--adopt 208 funding policies to ensure 201 funds provide the 
maximum incentive to towns to protect water quality and assure 
consistency with 208 

--recommend to the Water Resources Commission formation of water 
pollution abatement districts in Buzzards Bay and South Sagamore 

--assume responsibility for coordination with 208 on construction 
projects 

--give priority to funding regional septage facilities 

--reserve construction funds for non-sewered alternatives 

Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE) 

--enforce state landfill regulations and Title 5, seeking addi- 
tional funding and staffing as required 

--assist CCPEDC in reviewing innovative technologies and sub- 
surface disposal options 

--work with CCPEDC to develop comprehensive water quality/quantity 
monitoring program 

--continue chemical testing and analysis of municipal water 
supplies 

--establish state policy on acceptable septage treatment and dis- 
posal options 

2-130 



-tt assist CCPEDC in developing acceptable solid waste management 
plans . 

--utilize USGS information and coordinate with CCPEDC in evaluating 
local requests for installation of new wells or increasing capacity 
of existing wells 

--conduct study of Otis AFB to determine whether it should serve as 
a potential water supply development area or as a site for regional 
wastewater or solid waste management facilities 

--issue regulations under Ch. 25, S. 7A to require construction of 
salt storage sheds or relocation of stockpiles to non-critical 
areas and enforce present authority to require annual reports from 
large users 

--implement 208 recommendations and coordinate with 208 agency in 
granting permits for sewage and septage treatment. and disposal 
facilities 

--support efforts to establish regional septage facilities 
through its regulatory powers 

--require trained health agents for Title 5 enforcement 

--review information in the 208 plan and make appropriate 
revisions to Title 5 

--exercise authority to implement Title 5 in Category 1 areas 

--investigate and recommend control of chemical septic tank 
scouring agents 

Department of Public Safety 

--seek modifications to Fire Protection Regulations to require 
underground installation of only fiberglass storage tanks in 
aquifer areas and to require local fire departments to conduct 
annual or semi-annual inspections of inventory records kept in 
compliance with Rule 51. 

Mass. Department of Public Works 

--continue efforts to minimize the impacts of road salt use through 
careful supervision of maintenance personnel, improved equipment, 
and research into improved application techniques; implement policy 
of storing all road salts in storage sheds, by constructing storage 
sheds for all MDPW stockpiles and assisting towns to construct 
storage sheds with funding and technical assistance 

--conduct educational workshops for local highway maintenance 
personnel on application and storage procedures 



2-131 



/ 



Kegional Agencies 

Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission (CCPEDC) 

--establish a permanent water resources planning staff 

--establish a Water Resources Advisory Council to advise CCPEDC in 
water quality planning policies and program development 

--provide technical assistance to town boards and departments on 
facility planning, construction and operation, on-site system 
management, land use management and non-point source control. 

--encourage the implementation of all final 208 plan recommenda- 
tions by the towns and other responsible agencies 

--update 208 plan, continue regional water quality planning 

--develop regional water supply management 

--coordinate regional septage and solid waste disposal planning 

- coordinate regional water quality monitoring data in cooperation 
with DEQE, DWPC, USGS and the County Health Department; act as a 
clearinghouse for storage and regional evaluation of all water 
quality and quantity data obtained on Cape Cod 

--review 201 proposals and plans for consistency with Cape Cod 
208 plans and establish 201 funding priorities in cooperation 
with DWPC and EPA 

--review and disseminate to the towns new information and research 
data on wastewater management and water quality 

--coordinate special training programs for local health agents and 
other town officials on water resource protection matters 

--inform and involve the public on matters and issues of importance 
to water quality and 208 plan implementation. 

Barnstable County Health Department 

--conduct private well sampling and perform bacteriological testing 
for municipal water supplies and continue recreational waters 
sampling program 

--provide all water quality information to central data bank 

Barnstable Conservation District 

--cooperate with SCS in providing assistance to towns in erosion 
control and with DWPC, SCS and the University of Massachusetts 
Experimental Stations in setting BMP's for agricultural activities. 



2-132 



Local Boards 

Boards of Selectmen 

--supervise structural facilities planning, construction and man- 
agement 

--initiate 201 or other comprehensive planning process in towns 
that have identified "Potential Sewer Service Areas" 

--participate in Regional Solid Waste Disposal Advisory Committee 
and the proposed Septage Task Force 

--improve stormwater runoff control through such methods as re- 
duced road salting, (may involve town DPW as well) . 

--cooperate with other town boards to adopt bylaws encouraging water 
conservation and underground storage of gasoline and oil in fiber- 
glass tanks only. 

Boards of Health 

--establish program to monitor water quality in areas of sewer 
treatment plants and sanitary landfills (in cooperation with 
regional program) 

--upgrade septage treatment and disposal 

--control on-site disposal through strict enforcement of Title 5, 
implementation of on-site system management program, and adopt 
special health regulations as recommended 

--upgrade sanitary landfills to meet state requirements, coop- 
erate in regional solid waste planning and encourage recycling. 

Planning Boards and Conservation Commissions 

--identify "Water Resource Protection Areas" and seek zoning 
modifications to implement 208 land use recommendations 

--encourage open space acquisition, conservation easements and 
transfer of development rights in protection areas 

--update comprehensive town plans to include water quality and 
water resource considerations 

--in cooperation with water districts or departments, determine 
future public water supply areas and recharge needs and adopt 
protective measures 

--utilize zoning bylaws, subdivision regulations and state Wet- 
lands Act to control non-point pollution sources such as erosion 
and sedimentation and storm water runoff from urban areas construc- 
tion related activities, agricultural uses and from uses of ferti- 
lizer and pesticides 

2-133 



Water Quality Advisory Committee 

--cooperate in regional water resource planning by participating 
in the proposed Water Resource Advisory Committee 

--assure consistency of local 201 plans with 208 plans 
Fire Departments 

--control underground storage of gasoline and oil by strict 
enforcement of the Fire Protection Regulations 

Financial Arrangements 

Where the costs of specific recommendations can be estimated, they have 
been so noted in "Water Quality Management Recommendations," Chapter 2. 
Since town resources vary considerably, however, it is very difficult 
to determine the cost of implementing each 208 recommendation in each 
town. In addition, the implementation of the various 208 recommenda- 
tions will require varying degrees of effort. 

The additional work load to carry out certain recommendations may be 
assumed by town boards with little or no cost to the town (requiring 
developers to submit erosion control plans, using sand instead of road salt 
in municipal well recharge areas). For other recommendations, it is 
likely that some additional town personnel or expenditures will be 
needed at some point in the future (constructing a municipal salt 
storage shed, inspecting on-site systems in Category 1 £ 2 problem 
areas) . Certainly, the municipal share of building treatment facili- 
ties under a 201 facility plan is a significant financial commitment 
to protecting public health and water quality. 

Where town funds are required, town meeting must provide the funds 
necessary to implement the recommendation. Where state or federal 
assistance is available to towns for a specific implementation ac- 
tion, CCPEDC will provide technical assistance to the towns in seek- 
ing that assistance. 

Most recommendations to state and federal agencies have not been ana- 
lyzed in terms of specific manpower or equipment needs. It is clear 
that such analysis can only be performed by the agencies in question, 
by evaluating the need for additional staff or by reordering agency 
priorities to accommodate the 208 recommendations. WTiere it is evi- 
dent that additional funds would be needed for a specific recommenda- 
tion, a recommendation has also been made that the state agency seek 
such funds from the General Court or that the federal agency seek 
funds from Congress. It should be evident that additional funds are 
needed on both levels of government to meet the goals of PL 92-500. 

On the regional level financial arrangements can be more clearly out- 
lined. To carry out the responsibilities of water resource planning, 
coordination of water quality monitoring efforts and technical assis- 
tance to towns the following staff needs are anticipated on a perma- 
nent basis: 



2-134 



CCPEDC ANNUAL COST 

water resources coordinator $16,500 

(administration, water supply planning, 
intergovernmental liaison, local assis- 
tance, grant review, coordination of 
public participation) 

technical associate $16,000 

(local technical assistance in engineer- 
ing fields, grant review, model regula- 
tion writing, pilot field projects) 

research assistant $10,000 

(monitor USGS wells, assist in water 
quality sample collection, assist 
staff by data collection and in- 
ventory projects) 

secretary $ 8,000 

Subtotal $50,500 

Other Expenses 

office space, utilities, supplies, travel, $10,000 

telephone, postage, etc. 

contract services 

(technical assistance from USGS, legal, $10,000 

consultants) Subtotal $20,000 



Barnstable County Health Department 



TOTAL $70,500 



chemist $13,000 

(conduct water quality testing of 
private wells) 

laboratory supplies $ 1,000 

TOTAL $14,000 



Both CCPEDC and the County Health Department funds are included in the 
Barnstable County budget and any increase in personnel or other ex- 
penses must be approved first by the Barnstable County Finance Advisory 
Board and Barnstable County Commissioners. Even with such local ap- 
proval, however, it remains up to the Committee on Counties and the 
General Court to approve county budgets. While it has been the present 
Governor's policy to veto any increases in county budgets, there may be 
a change in this policy under a new administration that will begin in 
January, 1979. There has also been increasing consideration by both 
the Governor's office and the General Court of the possibility of re- 
leasing county budgets from legislative control and giving fiscal 
autonomy to the counties. 



2-135 



It is also appears that a certain degree of financial support for the 
continuing 208 program may be available through EPA funds. It is likely 
that at least for the next one to two years, sufficient funds to support 
at least one staff position will be available from EPA. This funding 
provides 75% of the program cost and requires a 25% local match. 

In the first year of the continuing program, FY 79, EPA is providing 
$40,000 to the Cape Cod 208 program. With the local CCPEDC match and a 
position provided through CETA, this funding will enable CCPEDC to carry 
on the 208 program at approximately the recommended level. CCPEDC was 
also successful in obtaining an addition of $6,000 to its FY 79 budget 
to support a Cooperative Agreement with the USGS which is included in 
the proposed budget under "contract services." 

The combined funding for FY 79 will enable the 208 staff to initiate an 
intensive technical assistance program with the addition of a technical 
associate and to continue its regional planning activities. Future 
support from EPA is expected to be reduced to $25,000 or less per year, 
and the CETA position may no longer be available. For this reason, it 
is recommended that the CCPEDC seek the creation of at least the position 
of water resources coordinator as a county position in FY 80 to insure 
that water resources planning will be a permanent .part of the CCPEDC's 
comprehensive planning program. 

It is further , recommended that CCPEDC consider requesting the creation 
of the research assistant position for FY 80. While this position is 
considered to be necessary to the continuing program, it is understood 
that politically the attempt to create two positions in one year may 
not be advisable. 

It is also recommended that the CCPEDC continue to seek $6,000 in its 
annual budget to support the cooperative program with USGS discussed 
in detail in the "Water Supply Management" section of the final plan. 
CCPEDC should also evaluate the need for additional funds for the 
USGS/CCPEDC Cooperative Agreement as the program proceeds. Finally, 
it is recommended that the County Health Department again seek to 
create the county position of chemist and that the CCPEDC support this 
request. 

Town/County Contracts 

An alternative approach to providing the necessary financial support 
for the continuing 208 program other than relying on the county budget 
is through enabling legislation that would allow towns to contract 
with the county for services. At the present time the county does 
not have the authority to perform services under direct contract to 
the towns. However, precedent for the General Court granting this 
authority has been set in Franklin County. There towns wanted to have 
the county hire a regional health agent to be paid directly under con- 
tract with the towns that would use the agent's services. 



2-136 



The authority for town/county contracts has many possibilities. Towns 
interested in pursuing a special program could get together and hire 
a regional staff person who could cost-effectively handle the work for 
the involved towns. The time of the staff person to be spent in each 
town could be estimated and the person's salary divided among the co- 
operating towns accordingly. Each town would appropriate their share 
of the individual's salary at town meeting. 

Through town/county contracts, the funding for locally supported pro- 
grams could be provided without the approval of the General Court. 
Each town would have direct control over whether or not it wanted to 
participate in a special project. There would be enormous flexibility 
in the types of projects that could be conducted and staff with exper- 
tise suited for each project could be hired specifically to carry out 
that project. 

Town/county contracts are suited particularly to the many planning 
activities of CCPEDC. When certain towns want specific problems 
solved, they may approach the CCPEDC for assistance. Unless the prob- 
lem is Cape-wide in nature, it is unlikely that CCPEDC will allocate 
major staff time to the project. While local technical assistance 
to a single town or a group of towns is a major emphasis of CCPEDC, 
its staff is limited and cannot always get involved in a local pro- 
ject to the extent needed to fully resolve the problem. 

In the area of water quality, there are many special studies (e.g. 
landfill monitoring, problem area evaluation) and services (pond 
monitoring, assistance in working with consultants) that will be de- 
sired and needed by the towns. Town/county contracts would provide 
flexibility to both CCPEDC and the towns in meeting these needs. 

It is, therefore, recommended that CCPEDC explore the degree of local 
support for town/county contracts as soon as possible. Based on this 
support, CCPEDC should consider drafting enabling legislation that 
would grant contract authority to Barnstable County for consideration 
in the 1979 legislative session. 



Implementation Schedule 

To be completed by Sept. 30, 1979 

1. CCPEDC water resources planning staff established 

2. Water Resources Advisory Council established 

3. Town water quality advisory committees established 

4. Initiate facility planning efforts for sewerage treatment systems 
in: 

Buzzards Bay/Wareham region 

Chatham 

Provincetown/Truro 



2-137 



Make Step 2 application for: 

Barnstable, 

Falmouth, 

Sandwich, South Sagamore 

Yarmouth 

5. Initiate facility planning for neighborhood solutions and septage 
facilities in towns with major Category 2 problem areas not covered 
by sewer facility plans. (See Table 2. .) 

Barnstable (Neighborhood solution) 

Dennis (Neighborhood solution and septage facility if 

Yarmouth EIS does not recommend regional septage 

plant with Yarmouth) 
Harwich (Neighborhood solution and septage facility if 

Chatham 201 plan does not recommend regionalized 

septage treatment with Harwich) 
We 11 fleet (Neighborhood solution and regional septage with 

Truro) 

6. CCPEDC to conduct model on-site system inspection and maintenance 
program, and develop model health regulations for implementation 

7. Towns assess needs and develop budget provisions for hiring adequate 
professional health staff to implement on-site system inspection and 
maintenance programs 

8. Watershed Protection Districts established in 5-6 towns 

9. CCPEDC and County Health Department sign MOU governing their 
activities in private well sampling program 

10. Regional solid waste management plan updated through efforts of 
CCPEDC Solid Waste Advisory Committee 

11. Site for hazardous waste facility is selected by DEQE and plans 
for the facility are begun 

12. EOEA and DEQE issue septage treatment and disposal policy statement 

13. Title 5 is reviewed and revised by DEQE 

14. MDPW sponsored workshop on road salt application and storage held 
on Cape Cod as the first in an annual series of such workshops 

15. Regulations under Ch. 25 S. 7 A issued by DEQE 

16. DEQE agrees to utilize USGS model in approving new wells or well 
expansion possibly through MOU between USGS, DEQE and CCPEDC 

17. Town/county contracts bill submitted to the General Court 

18. Public education program initiated with seminars and the publi- 
cation of public information materials 



2-138 



To be completed by Sept. 30, 1980 . 

1. Watershed Protection Districts . established in all Cape towns 

2. Road salt storage sheds constructed (or soon to be constructed) 
or stockpiles relocated to non-critical areas by all Cape towns 

3. Road salt application practices standardized to reduce use by all 
Cape towns 

4. Fire departments inspecting inventory records of bulk oil and gas 
storage tank owners on a regular basis 

5. Bylaw prohibiting underground storage of gasoline and oil in non- 
fiberglass containers adopted by all towns; and the replacement of 
steel tanks required 

6. Zoning bylaws and subdivision regulations modified in all towns to 
improve erosion and stormwater runoff control 

7. Town bylaw requiring water saving devices adopted in all towns 

8. Regional landfill monitoring project arranged between 2-3 cooperating 
towns, USGS and CCPEDC 

9. State Fire Protection Regulations modified to require underground 
fiberglass storage tanks and to require regular inspection of in- 
ventory records . 

10. Target date for implementation of on-site system management program 
in Barnstable and Chatham 



To be completed by Sept. 30, 1983 

1. First phase of revised regional solid waste management plan imple- 
mented. 

2. Regional water supply management plan completed and implementation 
phase underway. 

3. Towns have evaluated the impacts of abandoned sanitary landfills 
and have sealed those threatening critical water resources. 

4. Boat occupancy in all major harbors and marinas is controlled 
through local bylaws and enforcement 

5. General Permit Program established for control of storm drains by 
DWPC 

6. BMP's for agricultural activities established by DWPC in the state 

7. State hazardous waste disposal facility constructed and is in 
operation 



2-139 



8. Study of water quality at Otis AFB completed by DEQE 

9. Landfill monitoring program established for all landfills near or 
upgradient of critical water resources 

10. Water Resource Protection Districts established in all towns 

11. Target date for completion of septage facility construction and 
implementation of on-site systems management program in all towns 

12. Target date for completion of construction of initial phases in 
sewer service areas in towns indicated in sewer service areas map 

Barnstable 

Sandwich/South Sagamore 
Falmouth 
Yarmouth 



To be completed by 1985 

1. Construction of sewerage systems in: 

Buzzards Bay 

Chatham 

Provincetown/Truro 

To be completed by 1995 

1. Pump out facilities in use at all major harbors and marinas 

2. Regional solid waste management plan is operational including con- 
struction of all regional facilities. Landfill operations have 
been eliminated or reduced to a minimum. 

3. Target date for construction of future phases of sewer service areas 



2-140 



Town 
Recommendations 



Barnstable 

Bourne 

Brewster 

Chatham 

Dennis 

Eastham 

Falmouth 

Harwich 

Mashpee 

Orleans 

Provincetown 

Sandwich 

Truro 

Wellfleet 

Yarmouth 




Recommendations for town action to improve water quality management have 
been made throughout this final plan. These recommendations apply in 
general to every Cape town. Some towns may already be following the 
208 plan recommendations through their own recognition of the need for 
action on certain problems, others have recently taken steps to impi- 
ment some of these recommendations. But many of the recommendations 
will require the attention of all the towns and a willingness on the 
part of town boards to work with the 208 staff to adapt these recom- 
mendations to the particular problems of each town. 

The 208 draft plan includes background information on each of the 

towns in "Town Perspectives" Chapter 7. This background information 

on the present water quality and wastewater management problems of 

the town has not been repeated in the final plan. The draft plan should 

be considered as a reference indicating the need for special attention 

to those problems addressed in the final plan. These recommendations are 

aimed at providing a general overview of the priority areas for town action, 

The towns should also follow the recommendations for town action (where 

appropriate) as follows: 

LAND USE CONTROLS 

Towns should cooperate with the 208 staff in establishing "Water 
Resource Protection Areas" and should adopt the recommended protective 
measures. 

Towns should make land acquisition in "Water Resource Protection 
Areas" a high priority. 

Towns should establish "Seasonal Residential Districts" in their 
zoning bylaw and control conversions of seasonal dwelling units. 

Towns considering taking measures to control serious eutrophi cation in a 
pond, should conduct a pond study coordinated with the 208 program. 

NON-POINT SOURCE CONTROLS 

Sanitary Landfills 

Towns should strictly comply with state landfill regulations. 

Towns should encourage recycling of materials. 

Towns should locate all abandoned landfills and consider sealing 
with impervious cover to minimize long-term impacts. 

Towns should improve septage disposal facilities and regionalize when 
cost effective. 

Stormwater Runoff 

Towns should adopt performance regulations for developers to maintain 
runoff at pre-development rates. 



3-1 



Planning boards should limit amount of impervious surface in residen- 
tial and other development and encourage natural surface infiltration. 

Conservations commissions should investigate suspected storm drains 
through water quality samples and order removal if causing pollution 
problem. Boards of health should order upgrading of on-site systems 
if discharging to storm drain. 

Planning boards should require erosion control plans' from developers. 

Towns should adopt earth removal bylaws regulating operation of sand 
and gravel pits . 

Conservation commissions that suspect a specific agricultural, ferti- 
lizer or pesticide use is causing pollution problem should request 
DWPC to sample area. If use is causing pollution conservation 
commission should order owner to abate the source. 

Gasoline $ Oil Storage $ Spills 

Fire department should conduct regular inspections of inventory records 
of bulk oil and gasoline storage tanks (may designate this authority to 
board of health) . 

Towns should adopt bylaw that prohibits installation of non- fiberglass 
underground gasoline or oil storage tanks. 

Towns should adopt bylaw that requires replacement of all existing steel 
tanks after 15 years unless owner can prove tank does not leak. 

Fire departments should require permits for all gasoline and oil storage 
tanks, including home fuel oil tanks. 

Vessel Discharges 

Towns should control boat occupancy in harbors. 



Saltwater Intrusion 

Towns should dispose of wastewater on land. 

Towns should use CCPEDC criteria for future water supply development 
areas and should have the installation or expansion of wells near 
shore analyzed by USGS. 

Road Salt Application and Storage 

Towns should reduce or eliminate road salting in recharge areas of public 
and private wells. Sand should be used instead of salt. 

If towns only reduce road salting, they should use maximum 50-50 sand/ 
salt mixture 



3-2 



I 



Towns should appropriate funds for sheds and move stockpile piles 
to non- critical areas. 

Towns should modify drainage away from recharge areas when repairing 
roads . 

Towns should purchase improved snow application equipment capable of 
accurately controlling salt application rates. 

WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT 

Towns should cooperate in regional planning to develop a comprehensive 
water supply management plan. 

Towns should adopt recommended land use controls to protect water quality 

WATER CONSERVATION 

Water conservation devices should be installed in all town buildings. 

Towns should adopt town bylaw that requires water saving devices in all 
new construction. 

Towns should adopt town bylaw requiring new laundromats and existing 
laundromats replacing old machines to use water saving models. 

Towns should adopt town bylaw requiring new car washes to use a re- 
cycling system. 

Water utilities should require 100% metering of services. 

Water utilities should restrict lawn watering during summer months and 
require large irrigation systems to use private water supply. 

Water utilities should keep accurate records of use by category of user. 

Water utilities should conduct regular leak detection program. 

Water utilities should examine present rate schedule to determine if 
changes are needed that encourage water conservation. 

Water utilities should conduct public education program to encourage 
water conservation. 

WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT 

The following towns and regions should complete 201 facilities plans 
and construct the recommended facilities within the first five years of 
implementation: Provincetown/Truro, Chatham, Yarmouth, Barnstable, 
Falmouth, Sandwich/South Sagamore. , 

The Town of Bourne should form water pollution abatement districts in 
Buzzards Bay and South Sagamore. 



3-3 



Towns should seek assistance of the 208 planning agency in making 
application for 201 funds, and should maintain close contact with 
the 208 agency throughout the planning process. 

Towns should join a regional effort to develop septage treatment 
facilities . 

The following towns with large Category 2 problem areas should apply 
for 201 funds to develop decentralized solutions: Barnstable, Bourne, 
Dennis, Harwich, Orleans and Wellfleet. 



Towns should employ a qualified health agent. 

Towns should require septage haulers to report locations of systems 
pumped. 

Boards of health should reorganize their files to develop an inven- 
tory of on-site systems. 

Towns should conduct a sanitary survey in problem areas. 

Towns should require failing substandard systems to be upgraded to 
septic tank systems. 

Boards of health should not allow rehabilitation or replacement of 
cesspools and should not allow the use of chemical scouring agents 
for rehabilitation of cesspools or leach pits. 

Towns should require upgrading of substandard systems prior to issu- 
ance of building permits for expansion of living space or conversion 
of seasonal dwellings. 

Towns should assist low income residents in financing upgrading of 
systems. 

Towns should educate homeowners on proper operation and maintenance 
of septic tank systems. 

Towns should establish a maintenance pumping program when adequate 
septage treatment facilities are available. 

Towns should adopt subsurface disposal regulations more stringent 
than Title 5. 



3-4 



Barnstable 

Water Supply Protection 

The major 208 concern for Barnstable is the protection of its public 
water supply wells. The town is presently served by three separate 
water districts and a private water company. Initial plans for a 
W. Barnstable Water District are also underway. The water districts 
and water company should begin immediately to work together in coop- 
eration with CCPEDC staff, to define the areas that should be Water- 
shed Protection Districts. 

Barnstable Water Company wells located in Hyannis have shown some el- 
evation of nitrates possibly from the encroachment of development near 
the wellfields. The possible need for treatment or relocation of these 
wells in the future should water quality continue to deteriorate, points 
to the need for Watershed Protection Districts. 

The Planning Board appears to be interested in water supply protection 
as indicated by its recent zoning proposals. The board of selectmen 
have also indicated willingness to encourage town action in creating 
Watershed Protection Districts by cooperating with the 208 staff in 
its watershed protection program in the coming year. The coordination 
of these town boards and the water utilities is essential to the suc- 
cess of this effort in Barnstable. 

Water Quality Planning Coordination 

Meeting the water supply and water quality protection needs of the 
future town population must also be addressed in a coordinated plan- 
ning approach. Possible consolidation of the water utilities or some 
formal coordinative mechanism should be seriously considered to in- 
sure efficient and effective protection of the town's water resources. 

While a number of individuals actively cooperated in the 208 planning 
program representing certain town boards, there was not a coordinated 
effort among town boards to participate in the program. Such coordi- 
nation is essential in both regional and local level water resource 
planning. It is suggested that the town form a Water Quality Advisory 
Committee to assume the coordinative function as soon as possible. 

Wastewater Management 

While the town is presently constructing an expansion of the sewage 
treatment plant and collection system with EPA 201 funds, it has not 
addressed all of the wastewater management problem areas in the town. 
Certain problem areas are included as future phases of the sewer col- 
lection system expansion in the "Sewer Service Areas" delineated in 
the 208 plan. These areas would be eligible for 201 funding assistance 
If the town wants to expand the collection system beyond these areas 
with 201 funding, additional 201 facilities planning must be carried 
out to demonstrate a sewer need exists under present EPA criteria. 



3-5 



It is the position of the 208 program that the present Hyannis treat- 
ment plant has the necessary capacity to handle all sewer service area 
needs in Hyannis. Should the town want to expand the collection sys- 
tem beyond these sewer service areas, 201 funds will not be available 
for these expansions or for an additional treatment plant. In addition, 
the need for collection system expansion in the Hyannis area should be 
carefully considered in assessing the plant's ability to accept 
wastewater from Yarmouth (which may be an alternative considered in the 
Yarmouth EIS) since the Hyannis treatment plant cannot be expanded be- 
yond its present capacity. 

The town has a professional health agent involved in on-site system 
management. The town's health regulations already include a number of 
the 208 recommendations including reporting by septage haulers and up- 
grading failing systems. Additional health agent staff, however, is 
needed to conduct inventories of the numerous Category 2 problem areas 
in the town. 

The town should consider, in the near future, entering into a 201 facil- 
ities plan to resolve the present Category 2 problem areas possibly 
through decentralized solutions. Such a 201 facility study should also 
consider the treatment plant capacity for accepting septage from Mashpee 
In addition, the 201 study, as well as the efforts of town boards 
(especially the Conservation Commission) should address the coastal 
water quality problems of the town, particularly Lewis Bay. The impact 
of stormwater runoff and vessel discharges on coastal waters are of 
particular concern. Until the 201 study is begun, it is suggested that 
the town consider the stormwater runoff and vessel discharges recommen- 
dations a priority for implementation. 

Water Quality Monitoring 

Finally, the town should continue monitoring its sewage treatment plant 
and should participate in a regional sanitary landfill monitoring pro- 
gram in cooperation with CCPEDC and the USGS. Both the sewage treatment 
plant and the sanitary landfill are possibly upgradient of both public 
and private wells. 



3-6 



Bourne 

The Town of Bourne presents unique geographic difficulties to be over- 
come in water quality management due to its physical division by the 
Cape Cod Canal. The town is comprised of four separate villages: 
Bourne and South Sagamore on the south side of the Canal and Buzzards 
Bay and North Sagamore on the mainland side. The hydrology and land 
use of the Cape Cod aquifer are described in the "Water Supply" section 
of this plan. The following water supply discussion includes a brief 
description of aquifer conditions in the mainland villages. 

Water Supply 

The geohydrology of the mainland portion of Bourne is similar to the 
Cape's in that it is made up of glacial moraine and outwash deposits. 
This area shares the high-yield Plymouth aquifer with other coastal 
communities of the southeastern Massachusetts region. The aquifer 
is generally 50-150 feet thick, underlain by bedrock, and groundwater 
flow radiates from the Bourne/Plymouth border toward the coastal boun- 
daries: Buzzards Bay, the Canal, and Cape Cod Bay, where groundwater 
discharges to the sea. While the groundwater aquifer is generally 
recharged by local precipitation, there is some groundwater movement 
into the area from Plymouth. This could at some point necessitate a 
regional water supply planning effort. Present wells for these two 
districts are relatively small, however, and water supply protection 
measures recommended for the rest of the Cape should be adequate to 
protect these supplies. 

The major land use features on this side of the Canal are dense resi- 
dential development near the Canal and a large commercial area in 
Buzzards Bay. Development appears to be encroaching upon the North Saga- 
more wells, near Cape Cod Bay, and nitrate concentrations in these wells 
are elevated above background (0.5 ppm) to 1.5-2.5 ppm. (Public health 
limit is 10.) Land use considerations would, therefore, favor protection 
of future water supply development areas midway between Buzzards Bay 
and the North Sagamore/Sandwich border. (See Map 5.6 "Potential Water 
Supply Development Area.") 

In spite of Bourne's innovative land use planning efforts, including a 
development scheduling zoning bylaw, anticipated growth could threaten 
present and future water supply areas and other critical water resources. 
Local officials have voiced particular concern over increasing develop- 
ment along Route 28 near Bourne Village, upgradient of the District 
wellfields. Implementation of Water Resource Protection Districts and 
improved land use controls will help protect the town's water resources. 
The board of selectmen has indicated its willingness to cooperate with 
the 208 staff in implementing this recommendation in the coming year by 
signing a cooperative work agreement. 

Wastewater Management 

The Town of Bourne has a major Category 1 problem area in Buzzards Bay, 
a densely developed commercial area. On-site system failures in this 
area have been tied to documented groundwater degradation. South Saga- 
more also has a small Category 1 area, due to high density residential 

i 

."5-7 



development. Working with the town, the 208 staff have developed recom- 
mendations for regional sewered solutions for these areas. It is 
recommended that water pollution abatement districts be formed in these 
two problem areas to coincide with water and fire district boundaries, 
and that they join with the neighboring communities of Wareham and Sand- 
wich for regional sewerage collection and treatment. 

The Wareham treatment plant is planned to serve the area adjacent to 
Buzzards Bay and has the capacity to accept sewage from Buzzards Bay. 
The Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Development District's 
208 plan recommends that Wareham' s sewer lines, when extended to the 
Bourne border, should be large enough to accommodate Buzzards Bay. It 
should be noted that the area adjacent to Little Buttermilk Bay is not 
proposed as an initial sewer service area (See "Sewer Construction Pro- 
jects" discussion) but as a "future phase." This area was included for 
purposes of calculating design flows for a sewage treatment facility, 
however, this should not preclude consideration of neighborhood and on- 
site solutions in the area. 

The Sandwich sewer facility plan includes consideration of regionaliza- 
tion for sewage treatment and disposal with South Sagamore. Flows 
calculated for Table 2.3 account for existing flow from this area with 
no expansion. The Towns of Bourne and Sandwich should begin negotiations 
to implement this solution as soon -as possible. 

The Town of Bourne has several fairly large Category 2 problem areas 
which should be investigated and on-site or neighborhood solutions im- 
plemented. The largest area, along Route 28 in Bourne Village, is 
designated "Category 2" because of the level of concern expressed by 
local officials over this area's proximity to the District's wellfields. 
It is likely that watershed protection measures are as important in this 
area as wastewater management facilities. 

It is the general recommendation of this plan that a town with substan- 
tial Category 2 problem areas should apply for 201 facility planning 
funds to abate existing problems and construct a septage facility. Mem- 
bers of the Bourne 208 review committee felt strongly, however, that the 
town would not support a town-wide approach to wastewater management 
after its failure to move ahead with the sewer plan developed in 1975. 
For this reason the town prefers the district approach recommended above. 
The town itself must then assume full responsibility for investigating 
and correcting problems in remaining problem areas. Should the town be 
unsuccessful in implementing this approach it should reconsider the 
possibility of conducting a 201 study. 

On-site system management should be implemented throughout the unsewered 
sections of Bourne, including a maintenance pumping program when ade- 
quate septage facilities are available. The town is in the process of 
constructing a septage lagoon system, but it should be aware that im- 
proved septage treatment is needed to abate groundwater contamination 
associated with lagoons. (See "Neighborhood Solutions and Septage Treat- 
ment" discussion.) Further details and costs of all of these recommen- 
dations are found in the "Wastewater Management" sections cited above. 



3-8 



Water Supply Planning and Coordination 

At the time of publication of the draft plan Bourne has demonstrated 
its willingness to cooperate with 208 recommendations and watershed 
protection program by appointing a local water quality advisory com- 
mittee. This committee should play a key role in both water supply 
and wastewater projects in the future. 



3-9 



Brewster 

Water Supply Protection 

Brewster is presently in the fortunate position of having major un- 
developed areas that protect large portions of the lower Cape ground- 
water basin. There are large areas of the town that could serve as 
future water supply development areas not only for Brewster, but also 
for the other towns in the basin. Given the 208 program population 
projections, it is likely that many of these areas will remain pro- 
tected over the planning period. 

However, Brewster does face substantial development pressures now 
and in .the future. Present and future town well sites should be pro- 
tected from the non-point sources resulting from this development by 
creating Watershed Protection Districts. The town should also coop- 
erate in regional water supply planning efforts to determine the fu- 
ture water supply needs of neighboring towns and whether Brewster will 
be called upon to assist in supplying these areas. 

Wastewater Management 

While Brewster is a small town, it has a full-time qualified health 
agent who is already implementing many of the on-site system manage- 
ment recommendations of the 208 plan. The health agent requires sep- 
tage haulers to report all pump-outs and through this program has 
successfully required the upgrading of on-site systems as they fail. 
The wastewater management problem areas that exist in the town are 
thus being corrected through this follow-up approach. 

Through the work of the health agent strictly enforcing Title 5, it 
is expected that no new problem areas will develop and that present 
problem areas will be controlled during the planning period. While 
the town does not have any sewer facility construction needs, it will 
need to improve its treatment and disposal of septage obtained from 
the on-site systems used throughout the town. 

The Orleans 201 facility plan will soon be underway and the coopera- 
tion of Brewster in the planning of a septage facility in Orleans that 
can meet Brewster's septage treatment needs is highly recommended. 
This facility would be the first regional septage treatment facility 
on the Cape and would offer the towns of Brewster, Orleans and East- 
ham an opportunity to deal on a long-term basis with their septage 
handling problems and to implement an on-site system management program. 

Water Quality Monitoring 

It is recommended that Brewster consider cooperating in a regional 
landfill monitoring program in cooperation with CCPEDC and the USGS. 
Such a monitoring effort would be particularly important if the town 
expands its present landfill. 



3-10 



Water Quality Planning Coordination 

Town officials have cooperated in the 208 program and have been con- 
cerned with integrating 208 recommendations into the town's zoning 
and health regulations. The need for continued cooperation particu- 
larly in the area of watershed protection suggests that the town should 
form a Water Quality Advisory Committee to coordinate the efforts of 
the town boards involved in water quality management. The first task of 
the committee might be participation in facility planning for regional 
septage treatment with Orleans. 



3-11 



Chatham 

Wastewater Management 

Chatham now has plans to seek 201 funds to conduct a Step 1 facilities 
plan. The 208 program supports Chatham in this effort and agrees that 
a Step 1 study is needed to examine the present capacity of the town's 
sewage treatment plant and the possible need to expand the present col- 
lection system. However, the 201 facility plan should be town-wide in 
scope and should fully evaluate all problem areas in the town including 
coastal water problems. 

The 208 program also suggests that the town fully examine all problem 
areas considered for expansion in terms of present EPA criteria for de- 
termining sewer needs. Since most of the costs for such expansion are 
not eligible for 201 funding, the town is likely to find the cost of 
extensive expansion is very high. 

The 201 study should also address the secondary growth impacts, par- 
ticularly strip commercial development, that such expansion down Route 
28 might cause. The extension of the sewer col-lection system will also 
result in an increased flow at the treatment plant. The 201 study 
should examine the impacts of this increased flow through a monitoring 
system and should consider the possibility of supplying public water 
to private wells that are located downgradient of the treatment plant. 

By 1979, the Chatham sewage treatment plant will be modified to accept 
septage. This modification will increase the flow at the plant and po- 
tentially improve the operation of the facility. Once the operation of 
the treatment plant is stabilized at this flow, the town should work 
with the 208 staff to project the flows that would be generated by a 
regular on-site system maintenance program throughout the town. This 
analysis could be carried out as part of the Step 1 facilities study. 
Based on this analysis, an appropriate on-site system maintenance sched- 
ule should be implemented. As suggested in the "Neighborhood Solutions 
and Septage Treatment" section the Chatham 201 should consider the feasi- 
bility of accepting septage from Harwich. 

Water Quality Planning and Coordination 

Throughout the 208 program, Chatham officials and citizens have active- 
ly participated in the development of 208 plan recommendations. With 
the Metcalf § Eddy Natural Resources Study as a basis, the town has been 
far-sighted in its water quality and water supply planning efforts. The 
Natural Resources Advisory Committee and other town boards have been work- 
ing together to solve many of the issues that were raised in the M § E 
study, but many of these issues remain unresolved. Recent interest by 
the planning board to revise the town's master plan through a comprehen- 
sive planning effort is most encouraging and indicates that future atten- 
tion will be given to planning decisions over the next few years. 



3-12 



While the Natural Resources Advisory Committee has performed a valu- 
able coordinative function in reviewing the 208 plan, it is recommended 
that the town make a formal appointment of a Local Water Quality Advi- 
sory Committee to participate in both the 201 facility planning effort 
and to work with CCPEDC in designating watershed protection areas. 

Water Supply Protection 

A major concern of the 208 program for the town's planning effort is the 
adoption of watershed protection districts for the public wells owned by 
the Chatham Water Co. While the town has purchased a large watershed 
area for future water supply development, the watershed areas around the 
present wells serving the town can best be described as minimal. The 
importance of watershed protection districts is illustrated by the 
"Recharge Area Needs" Map 5.5 in the draft plan. The water supply 
protection needs of the town will become increasingly difficult as the 
population grows. The present water supply wells are already located 
close to the Harwich town line and may be drawing water from Harwich. 
As the capacity of these wells is expanded, even more water will be 
drawn from Harwich. It is for this reason, that it is particularly 
important for Chatham to also cooperate in regional water supply plan- 
ning efforts. 



3-13 



Dennis 

Implementation of the 208 water quality plan in Dennis should give 
priority to establishing watershed protection districts and implementing 
on-site system management and septage treatment. 

Water Supply Protection 

Dennis has extended its public water system to serve most sections of 
the town. The Water District has developed extensive wellfields and 
pumping capacity, which should require little expansion to serve the 
1995 population. Wells are clustered in the center of the town, near the 
groundwater divide, which should simplify watershed area identification 
and protection. The one complicating factor is that wells located in 
eastern parts of the town, may be drawing recharge from western Brewster. 
Further investigation may indicate the need for a cooperative effort to 
implement watershed protection measures in both towns. 

It is suggested in the "Water Supply" section of the final 208 plan that 
Dennis is part of a natural groundwater sub region with Brewster, Harwich, 
Chatham and Orleans. The need for regional water, supply planning and 
management within this "basin" is also pointed out. Dennis has water of 
extremely high quality and a potential yield of 12 million gallons a day. 
This implies that Dennis may have water resources in excess of its needs, 
which could be called upon to supply other towns in the future. 

The town must explore the amount of recharge area that would be required 
to protect its projected yield, however, and determine whether present 
land uses and projected growth are favorable to watershed protection. 
As indicated in map "Potential Water Supply Development Areas," dense 
development in the southern half of Dennis and along Bass River may re- 
strict the amount or area available for recharge protection purposes. 
The town should work with the 208 program to determine present densities 
within the wellfield recharge areas and develop necessary zoning changes. 

One public supply well, number 13, is located potentially downgradient 
of the town landfill. This well was not pumped in 1975. Future use 
should be coordinated with a monitoring program. The town should also 
be aware that golf course maintenance can potentially affect groundwater 
quality since the Dennis Pines Golf Course is in the vicinity of some of 
the town's eastern wellfields. Fertilizing practices should be carefully 
regulated to control nitrogen leaching to the groudwater and the town 
should consider monitoring water quality under the golf course to eval- 
uate the effectiveness of control measures. 

Wastewater Management 

Dennis has a professional health agent and the town's health regulations 
already implement many of the 208 plan recommendations. The health agent 
has made a concerted effort to require upgrading of failing systems 
through a follow up method, and has mailed notices to homeowners to en- 
courage them to pump their septic systems regularly. 



3-14 



The town does have a substantial Category 2 problem area on the south 
side. This area is largely seasonal and may become a more serious 
problem as seasonal conversions to year-round homes increase. It is 
recommended that the town consider creating a "Seasonal Residential 
District" in the area south of Lower County Road and carefully control 
the conversion of seasonal dwellings in this area. The town should 
consider seeking 201 funds to conduct a study of this area, along with 
other problem areas and septage facility needs to determine if small 
scale treatment systems may be needed. . 

Groundwater quality problems downgradient of the septage pits were 
detected in the 208 water quality assessment. Septage treatment is a 
problem in Dennis. It is recommended in the discussion of "Facility 
Planning in Non-Sewered Areas" that Dennis should join with Yarmouth 
in a regional facility. Preliminary findings of the Yarmouth Environ- 
mental Impact Study indicate that this may not be feasible. One 
alternative under consideration is that Yarmouth build a small sewage 
treatment plant which could accept Yarmouth's septage flows but would 
have no additional capacity to regionalize with Dennis. 

If Yarmouth chooses the small plant alternative, Dennis should proceed 
with plans for its own septage facility. Since the town is not plan- 
ning to construct any sewage collection systems, septage flows may be 
large enough to make a separate facility cost-effective. Another pos- 
sibility that should be investigated is regionalization with Harwich. 



3-15 



Eastham 

Eastham should give priority to improving Title 5 enforcement and 
controlling conversion of seasonal dwellings. It is recommended 
in the On-site System Management section that Eastham apply jointly 
with either Orleans or Wellfleet for state funding assistance for 
a professional health agent. The health agent should direct his 
efforts at requiring upgrading of cesspools to septic tanks and 
developing an inventory of failed systems. 

Control of Seasonal Areas 

The entire western shore of Eastham is densely developed with sea- 
sonal dwellings using cesspools and private wells. The town should 
work with CCPEDC to implement a Seasonal Residential District in 
this area, requiring that Article 2 "Minimum Standards for Human 
Habitation" and Title 5 be met prior to conversion. 

Water Supply 

Water supply is also of concern in Eastham. The high density areas 
described above and the town's present 20,000 square foot minimum 
lot size are not considered to provide adequate .protection of private 
wells. It is suggested that the town begin to implement its water 
supply plan in the near future to serve densely populated areas, 
and areas around the town landfill. Interconnection with Orleans 
to serve Bridge Road should also be explored. 

Development of the water supply should be done cautiously to avoid 
salt water intrusion and use of "the USGS groundwater model should be 
helpful to consultants in planning the location of town wells. 

It is recommended that the town's 113-acre parcel inside the National 
Park be reserved for water supply development purposes. 

Solid Waste 

The town should install water table wells around the existing land- 
fill to determine the probable direction of groundwater flow from 
the site. Technical assistance is available in the design of such 
a system from CCPEDC. USGS water table data is insufficient in 
this area because the landfill is located near the groundwater divide. 

Further studies in cooperation with USGS may be necessary to locate 
the plume, since public water is not available and development is 
encroaching on the landfill area. 

The town should join regional waste disposal planning efforts in 
the hopes that a regional solution will be available before the 
existing site is exhausted. 



3-16 



Eastham should join with Orleans in construction of a regional 
septage facility. Orleans has already initiated a 201 applica- 
tion for a septage plant. It is recommended in the "Facilities 
Planning for Non-Sewered Areas" that the state and EPA fund a 
3- town regional plant in Orleans to serve Orleans, Eastham and 
Brewster. The town should form a Water Quality Advisory Committee 
to work with Orleans in planning this treatment facility. 



> 



3-17 



Falmouth 

Sewer Construction 

The immediate priority for Falmouth is resolution of the sewer contro- 
versy. The draft 208 plan presented sewer service areas for Falmouth 
which included Falmouth Village and Woods Hole. These were based on 
the sewer needs model developed for the 208 plan, local input, the pre- 
liminary facility plan prepared by Camp, Dresser § McKee (1976) and 
private studies (APCC, 1977). Further, the Commissioner of DEQE has 
notified the town on several occasions that the downtown situation con- 
stitutes a violation of Title 5 and the town is under orders by DWPC 
to abate the discharge of raw sewage at Woods Hole. 

A survey of residents and potential sewer users was conducted in the 
summer of 1978 to determine whether they would be willing to pay for 
sewers. The users were provided with information that sewering would 
cost them $4,000 over the first 10 years of operation. Two- thirds of 
the questionnaire responses were against sewering. On the basis of 
this questionnaire, the Department of Public Works advised the DWPC 
that the town did not want to sewer Falmouth Village, and recommended 
upgrading of the existing outfall in Woods Hole to comply with NPDES 
orders . The DWPC concurred and ordered the town to take immediate 
action to complete a facility plan for Woods Hole or to begin construc- 
tion of sewers in downtown Falmouth. 

Town meeting voted on September 27, 1978 to appropriate additional funds 
to complete a facility plan for both Woods Hole and Falmouth Village. 
Although this vote was not in complete conformance with the orders of 
DWPC, it is recommended that DWPC not prosecute the town as long as it 
is moving in a positive direction towards completion of a comprehensive 
plan to solve Falmouth's problems. The town should be required to com- 
plete the facility plan as voted and hold a public hearing on the plan. 
If town meeting action is not taken expeditiously on the final plan 
recommendations, the DWPC and DEQE should pursue regulatory actions. 

Camp, Dresser $ McKee evaluated three treatment and disposal alternatives, 
including a single outfall off Nobska point, inland treatment with spray 
irrigation and a two-plant alternative with a small outfall using the 
existing discharge pipe, and inland treatment of the effluent. On the 
basis of information presented by Camp, Dresser £ McKee (1976, 1978), the 
spray-irrigation alternative is the one which best meets 208 criteria. 
It is also most consistent with federal policies on innovative approaches, 
and cost-effective guidelines. This is the recommended alternative in 
the "Sewer Construction Projects" section. 

It is expected, however, that the additional 201 work will address in 
more detail septage handling, on-site system management and control of 
sodium chloride concentrations in the recharged effluent. Sewer service 
areas should be given a final review, taking into consideration recent 
information from the health agent and the need for major systems such as 
the Falmouth Hospital and the High School to be serviced. It is also 
recommended that the town refer to the discussion of Otis Air Force Base 
as a watershed area (see "Water Supply Management") and obtain data on 
the USGS study of the wastewater plume from the existing sand filterbeds. 

3-18 



The new data should he available from USGS during the planning period. 
Final determination of consistency of the facility plan with 208 
policies will depend upon evaluation of these issues. 

On-Site System Management 

The health agent for the town has stated that there are critical pro- 
blems with on-site system failures and Title 5 enforcement, both within 
and outside of, proposed sewer service areas. Additional staffing for 
the health department is essential to correct these problems. 

The board of health has attempted to require the septage haulers to 
report systems pumped, but has been challenged by the haulers on the 
legality of the regulation. It is the recommendation of this plan that 
the board is acting within its authority and should pursue its regulation 
and proceed to fine or suspend licenses of those refusing to cooperate. 
A maintenance pumping program should be implemented as part of the 
facility plan. 

Water Supply Protection 

The town of Falmouth adopted the first Watershed Protection District 
bylaw on Cape Cod. While passage of this bylaw is a major accomplish- 
ment, it is recommended that the town work with CCPEDC in inventorying 
non-point sources within the area, and bringing control measures into 
closer conformance with the 208 recommendations. The town has expressed 
its willingness to do so. 

Of particular concern to water supply protection is the location of the 
town disposal area potentially upgradient of Long Pond and within the 
watershed protection area. Also located upgradient of Long Pond is the 
new high school with a large septic system. 

Finally, the new wellfield area in the northeast portion of the town 
appears to be potentially downgradient of the sand filterbeds at Otis. 
Priority should be given to groundwater monitoring at these sites. 

Water Quality Coordination 

Falmouth's difficulties with sewer system planning and construction have 
a 30 year history. The social and economic complexities of the town, 
particularly the location of the scientific institutions at Woods Hole 
have contributed to the town's past inabilities to take action. While 
it is recognized that there is no easy resolution to this situation, it 
is strongly recommended that the town appoint a water quality advisory 
committee. 

A 208 review committee held very productive discussions during the draft 
review process. The involvement of such a committee throughout the 201 
process could be very helpful in avoiding future conflicts arising from 
an exclusive role of any one department, in sewer planning. It is hoped 
that the 208 review committee or another committee with similar repre- 
sentation, including the DPW, will assume this coordinative role. 



3-19 



Harwich 

Wastewater Management 

In most areas of the town, preventive zoning, regulatory and mainten- 
ance measures should enable the town to avoid future sewer needs. It 
has been stated by public officials throughout the 208 program that 
this is the intention of the town. However, the 208 program staff is 
concerned that the town recognize that the Category 2 problem areas on 
the south side of town need special attention. Current trends toward 
increasing zoning density in these areas should be examined very care- 
fully to avoid any possible intensification of the problems in this 
area. It is also suggested that the town consider establishing "Sea- 
sonal Residential Districts" in this area to control the conversion 
of seasonal dwellings to year-round occupancy when the on-site systems 
are inadequate. 

The town should be aware that the 208 plan does not indicate a sewer 
need in Harwich. This means that the town will not be eligible for a 
major central collection system for twenty years. Strong enforcement 
of the on-site system management recommendations in the town's waste- 
water management problem areas should be sufficient to control these 
problems. The town may wish to conduct a 201 facilities study at some 
point in the future to investigate possible small scale solutions for 
existing problem areas and the septage treatment needs of the town. 
New wastewater management problems created by the town's failure to 
take recommended actions for on-site system management will not be 
eligible for future 201 construction funds. 

While Harwich presently has a state approved interim lagoon, the town 
should not view this system as a long-term solution to its septage 
treatment problems. The town should refer to Table 2.7 for comments on 
possible regionalization with either Chatham or Dennis for septage 
facility construction. 

Water Supply Protection 

The town's present water supply wells are generally well protected with 
most areas around the wells zoned for 40,000 square foot lots. However, 
in recent weeks there has been considerable concern raised over the 
possible development of a large subdivision and golf course upgradient 
of the town's wellfield. Such development could have adverse impacts on 
the water quality of the well and should be carefully examined prior to 
the town granting authorization for the increased density it requires. 
The town should also consider purchasing additional areas to protect the 
town wells. 

It is further recommended that the town cooperate with the 208 program 
staff to delineate watershed areas and to adopt the recommended Water- 
shed Protection Districts to avoid the possible encroachment of high 
density development on well fie Ids. 



3-20 



Mashpee 



The town of Mashpee presently has a very limited public water supply 
system which serves only New Seabury and which is owned and operated 
by a private water company, the High Wood Water Co. The entire town 
relies on on-site systems for wastewater disposal. While there does 
not appear to be any major wastewater management problem areas indi- 
cated by the 208 program, pond water quality has been a problem of 
concern to the town for a number of years. 

Water Supply Protection 

The town currently has no active plans to establish a public water 
supply system to serve areas outside of New Seabury. The board of 
health, however, has been seeking the consideration of designating an 
area for future public water supply development. The specific location 
of this area should be coordinated with the 208 program to insure that 
the area is not downgradient or does not include potential pollution 
sources. 

The town should protect the future water supply development area, once 
defined, with a Watershed Protection District. The board of selectmen 
have already indicated their willingness to cooperate with the 208 
staff in defining the area to be protected in the coming year. 

Wastewater Management 

Non-structural solutions, including careful management of on-site sys- 
tems, water conservation and innovative options should be adequate to 
avoid creation of future sewer needs. Mashpee is not highly developed 
and is in an excellent position to plan development and manage sub- 
surface disposal to avoid future problems. 

Mashpee should participate in regional septage planning with neighbor- 
ing towns (Sandwich, Falmouth and Barnstable) to determine the most 
cost-effective means of disposing of its septic wastes. The town should 
refer to the "Neighborhood Solutions and Septage Treatment" section for 
further information. 

Pond Management 

The town has been concerned about the condition of recreational ponds 
that have significant development around them, particularly Johns and 
Ashumet Ponds. Extensive water quality testing has been conducted on 
Johns Pond, and the town is interested in implementing a pond management 
program. The 208 program has assisted the town in obtaining an inten- 
sive study of Johns Pond during FY 79 by DWPC that will assist the town 
is assessing appropriate management techniques. It is suggested that 
the town continue to pursue funding sources, in cooperation with the 208 
program, to support a model pond management program on Johns Pond. 

It is further suggested that the town adopt a "Great Pond Protection 
District" as part of its zoning by-laws to begin such a management pro- 



3-21 



gram. The 208 planning staff will provide technical assistance to the 
town in delineating the areas around a model pond that should be in- 
cluded in a "Great Pond Protection District," 

Solid Waste 

The town is currently seeking to expand the landfill area with DEOE ap- 
proval of an adjacent area. Approval of this assignment is still under 
DEQE consideration. If approval is not given, it may be necessary to 
consider relocating the landfill. However, the town should try to avoid 
establishing a new landfill site and should actively pursue regional sol- 
utions as a preferred alternative. 

The landfill plume may be flowing towards the Mashpee River. If private 
wells are found to be downgradient there may be a need for town water 
service to the area. 



3-22 



Orleans 

The major problems in Orleans at present are septage management, failing 
systems in the town center, and protection of water quality in the muni- 
cipal wells. Since most of the town will continue to rely on on-site 
systems, a comprehensive management program is essential. 

Wastewater Management 

Orleans is one of the first towns on the Cape to take positive action to 
abate the serious problems posed by septage disposal. The town has had 
a preliminary feasibility study prepared by Linenthal, Anderson and 
Eisenberg which recommends superchlorination by the Purifax process at 
the landfill site. This was submitted to the EPA for 201 funding, but 
the EPA has informed Orleans that a full 201 facilities plan will be 
required. 

The 208 staff has worked with the town and its consultant on the devel- 
opment of a scope of work that would adequately address the problems in 
downtown Orleans, which may need to be sewered with a small neighborhood 
system, and also that would consider regionalized septage treatment with 
Eastham and Brewster. The town is referred to the section of this plan 
titled "Facilities Planning in Non-sewered Areas" for recommendations on 
the scope of study required and recommendations on septage treatment and 
disposal . 

Water Supply Protection 

The major water supply protection measure required in Orleans is a de- 
tailed geo-hydrologic investigation and monitoring of the landfill site. 
It is located near the public supply wells, and although previous studies 
have indicated that the direction of flow is away from the wells, the 
actual plume location has not been determined. This is critical if the 
site is to be used as a septage disposal site in the future. 

The town's wellfields are located'near the Brewster border on a 500-acre 
watershed owned and protected by the town. The area partially abuts the 
Nickerson State Park which is used only seasonally and at very low den- 
sity. Areas of both Brewster and the Nickerson Park lie upgradient of 
Orlean's wellfield and also within the calculated area of contribution of 
the existing wellfields. A coordinated land use analysis coordinated 
with Brewster is necessary to determine watershed protection needs for 
Orleans. 

Orleans is referred to the Water Supply discussion regarding the "Lower 
Cape Region." Because of the proximity of saltwater to much of Orleans, 
it is likely that future expansions of the water supply will need to be 
coordinated with Brewster. 

On-Site System Management 

The 208 staff has discussed with the town its recommendation that a full- 
time professional health agent is essential to the effective enforcement 



3-23 



of Title 5. Since the town has indicated it is not prepared to present 
such a proposal to town meeting at this time, it is recommended that 
sharing of a health agent with Eastham under the State Department of 
Public Health funding program be considered (see "On-Site System Man- 
agement Program) . 

The town has begun requiring septage haulers to report locations of 
systems serviced and is accumulating information on the occurrence of 
failures in the town. Orleans has difficult soils in East Orleans and 
should pay particular attention to failures which might be due to im- 
proper soils evaluations or installation. Title 5 enforcement is 
critical in these areas. 

The town has indicated its interest in beginning a sanitary survey and 
inspection program. The 208 program will provide technical assistance 
to the town in this project through its continuing program. 

Water Quality Coordination 

It is recommended that the town appoint a water quality advisory com- 
mittee (see "Management Agencies" discussion) to work with the selectmen 
and consultants during the 201 planning process." 



3-24 



Provincetown 

Water Supply 

Provincetown 1 s immediate water quality concern is water supply. 
With the South Hollow wellfield closed down due to a gasoline spill and 
salt water intrusion threatening the Knowle's Crossing wellfield, the 
town must take immediate actions to ensure an adequate short-term 
supply and a permanent water supply. If successful, the recommended 
short-term solution, bioreclamation at the gasoline spill site, could 
restore useful capacity of the South Hollow wellfield by the summer of 
1980. Under this scheme the town would need to continue to use the 
temporary wellfields within the National Park and at the North Truro 
Air Force Base in 1979. Even with restored use of the South Hollow 
wellfield, however, the capacity of the water system falls short of 
supplying the present needs. 

Provincetown must develop a water supply master plan to assure that the 
present needs can be met without damage to the groundwater supply or 
the natural environment. Resolution of the shortage must be in keeping 
with National Park mandate to preserve the unique ecology and water- 
related natural resources within its boundaries. It must not, however, 
jeopardize private wells or natural resources outside the Park upon 
which the area's tourist economy is heavily dependent. 

Two alternative future supplies have been proposed for investigation: 
Well site 4 within the Park, site of the present temporary wellfield, 
and Atkins-Mayo Road site within Provincetown, which would require 
extensive water treatment. Both sites must be approached with caution. 
Site number 4 is between Knowle's Crossing and the South Hollow well- 
field. It is of concern to the 208 program that simultaneous pumping of 
the three sites could cause acceleration of saltwater intrusion into 
Knowle's Crossing or private coastal wells. The "recharge" area calcu- 
lated for the Atkins-Mayo site would include a large section of Province- 
town's east end, an area which is believed to be heavily saturated with 
wastewater. The water table also is very low at the site, making verti- 
cal saltwater intrusion a major potential hazard. Further evaluation of 
the site should also examine the potential effects on water table levels 
in natural bogs in the Provincelands . 

It is recommended that Provincetown work with Truro, the Massachusetts 
Water Resources Commission and the National Park Service in investigating 
long-term water supply solutions. The USGS computer model should be used 
through the ongoing cooperative agreement between CCPEDC and USGS to test 
the impacts of management alternatives. The area cf consideration for 
potential supply should be extended to the Long Nook Road site which was 
evaluated by USGS in 1974 for its potential to yield a 1 MGD supply. The 
conclusions of that study indicated that the withdrawal from that site 
might be accomplished with minimal environmental impacts. 

The National Park Service's firm policies regarding removal of water from 
a National Park are discussed in the "Water Supply Management" section 
and should be respected throughout the water planning effort. Princi- 
pally the town must fully investigate all alternatives and all possible 
environmental impacts within and outside the Park. Growth control and 
demand reduction through mandatory installation of water conservation 

3-2S 



fixtures should be given full consideration. Finally, the impact of 
additional withdrawals from Truro on private well supplies must be 
evaluated, and a monitoring network for lateral and vertical saltwater 
intrusion should be incorporated into any water development plan. An 
extended arrangement of withdrawal of water from the Park should only 
be permitted by the Park if it proves to be the only environmentally 
sound and economically feasible solution. 

Wastewater Management 

Provincetown also has a serious wastewater management problem in the 
downtown area. Several areas of Provincetown Harbor are presently 
closed to shellfishing and the 1975 water quality survey conducted by 
the DWPC indicated present water quality to be SC in the harbor. Sev- 
eral private studies of water quality have been commissioned by the town 
and have concluded that contamination threatening public health exists in 
the harbor. Storm drains have been cited as the major source, to which 
septic system overflows are believed to be contributors. It is public 
knowledge that failing cesspools are widely used by commercial estab- 
lishments and are pumped as often as three times a day during the summer. 
It is believed by the 208 agency and the DWPC that available information 
substantiates the need for sewers in Provincetown (see "Sewer Construc- 
tion Projects" section). For this reason it is recommended that if the 
town fails to initiate a 201 study to update and implement facility plans 
completed for the town in 1975 (Weston § Sampson) by 1980, the DEQE 
should take enforcement action against the town for violations of Title 5, 
The town should note that the "Sewer Construction Projects" section recom- 
mends that Beach Point in North Truro should be included in the facility 
plan. 

Facility planning for Provincetown must take into consideration the 
uniquely fragile hydrologic and ecological characteristics of the area. 
As discussed in the "Groundwater Basin" section, Provincetown is under- 
lain by a groundwater lens which is separated from that of the North 
Truro basin. Importation of water supply from Truro is an inter-basin 
transfer of water which contributes artificial recharge to the Province- 
town basin. Augmentation of water supply to be disposed of on-site will 
raise the water table in downtown Provincetown, aggravating on-site sys- 
tem problems. Sewering will lower the water table in downtown area, but 
problems of infiltration and construction in sandy soils may still be 
encountered. Ideally, Provincetown' s wastewater should be returned to 
the North Truro basin to restore the natural hydrological cycle and re- 
charge the groundwater supply. Discharge anywhere in Provincetown or 
Truro will probably require advanced waste treatment because of proximity 
to water supplies. Finally, the limitations of the water supply must be 
recognized and firm measures taken to prevent stimulation of growth by 
sewer construction. 

Planning Coordination 

It is recommended that the water and sewage problems be studied in a 
coordinated effort. The town should form a Water Quality Advisory Com- 
mittee (see "Management Agencies") to work with both planning efforts. 



3-26 



Sandwich 

Wastewater Management 

Prompt action is needed to abate public health problems and water 
quality degradation occurring in the town's Category 1 areas. A sewer 
facilities plan was completed for Sandwich in 1978, but changes in the 
Ocean Sanctuaries Act have obstructed implementation of the recommended 
alternative. The plan calls for a small outfall into the Cape Cod Canal, 
which now could only be allowed through a special act of the legislature. 
The Department of Environmental Management, responsible for implementa- 
tion of the Ocean Sanctuaries Act, has already indicated its reluctance 
to endorse such legislation. 

It is apparent that additional work may be necessary. Alternatives may 
need to be re-examined if the town is to justify its choice of outfall 
disposal. Under both the Ocean Sanctuaries Act and the EPA land treat- 
ment policies it must be determined that there is no economically feasi- 
ble alternative. It is strongly recommended that EPA make available 
necessary work. 

The town should continue to pursue a sewering program to abate Category 
1 problem areas in spite of these difficulties. Regionalization with 
South Sagamore is recommended. Should the town fail to act by 1980, 
a DEQE investigation of Title 5 violations should be initiated. 

Construction of a septage disposal facility has been suggested as an 
alternative to sewering and has been proposed by some individuals in 
the town. A septage treatment facility would not provide a comprehen- 
sive solution to the town's wastewater management problems and could not 
be considered to be consistent with the 208 plan. Therefore, it would 
be the 208 recommendation that 201 funds not be made available for the 
construction of a septage treatment facility. 

The town health agent should strictly enforce Title 5 and should seek 

additional qualified personnel to implement the 208 recommended on-site 

systems management program to avoid the development of additional prob- 
lem areas. 

Water Supply Management 

The town has taken progressive steps to increase lot sizes to at least 
one acre in most areas of town. The town has indicated willingness to 
cooperate with the 208 staff in delineating watershed areas and in 
adopting Watershed Protection Districts in the coming year. With these 
actions, it is believed that Sandwich will have an adequately protected 
future water supply. 

The problem of the State Fish Hatchery discharging over half a million 
gallons of fresh water must be addressed by the Department of Fisheries 
and Wildlife as recommended in the "Water Conservation" section of the 
final plan. 



3-27 



Solid Waste Management 

Sandwich faces the possibility of exhausting its present landfill area 
within the next few years. In addition, its septage disposal at this 
site causes considerable concern for groundwater quality. The town should 
actively participate in regional solid waste planning to develop a long- 
range solution to its solid waste management problems. 

Water Quality Planning Coordination 

There has been a serious delay in action on the town's proposed sewer 
facility plan and little coordinated participation of town boards in 
the 208 planning program. The town should immediately form a Water 
Quality Advisory Committee to take a leadership role in implementing 
the 201 facilities plan and to more fully coordinate its wastewater 
management efforts with the 208 program. 



3-28 



Truro 

Water Supply 

The major problem facing Truro is Provincetown's need for additional 
municipal water supplies. As discussed in the "Water Supply" section, 
Provincetown presently has two wellfields in Truro, by permission of 
the Massachusetts legislature. A recent gasoline spill from a leaking 
service station storage tank has resulted in contamination of the ground- 
water approximately 600 feet from the South Hollow Wellfield. 

The wellfield was shut down for the summer of 1978 and emergency water 
supplies obtained from the National Park and North Truro Air Force Base. 
It has been proposed (Camp, Dresser, McKee , 1978) that the gasoline 
spill be cleaned up through a bioreclamation process. Even if the South 
Hollow Wellfield is put back into production, however, Provincetown 
presently needs an additional permanent water supply. Present maximum 
day demands are 2.8 MGD and will increase to 3.0 by 2000. The existing 
capacity is only 2.0 MGD. 

It is recommended in the "Water Supply" section that development of a 
water supply plan for the outer Cape groundwater basins should be given 
immediate priority by local, regional and federal agencies to assure 
that development of additional wells is done without adverse impacts to 
the natural environment or private wells which most of Truro's residents 
depend upon for water supply. Growth controls and water conservation 
must be given full consideration in such a planning effort to assure 
that the groundwater resource is not overdeveloped. 

Wastewater Management 

The National Seashore Park occupies and preserves nearly 70% of the land 
area in Truro, and the remaining developable land is zoned for 37,000+ 
lots. With low density thus ensured and with Truro's naturally sandy 
soils, the town's wastewater problems are limited to a small strip of 
commercial development along a low-lying barrier beach known as Beach 
Point. This area of seasonal cottages and motels is adjacent to Pro- 
vincetown's high density commercial area. The area has been indicated 
in the Problem Areas Map on the basis of density, unstable soils and 
proximity to the water table and Cape Cod Bay. It was included in the 
Sewer Service Areas Map on the basis of the likely cost-effectiveness of 
sewering this area if a sewer is built for Provincetown. It is recom- 
mended that Truro cooperate with Provincetown in facility planning for 
this reason. There is no evidence that the Beach Point area itself is 
a severe wastewater problem, however, and it is not recommended that 
Truro undertake a facility plan by itself. 

During the review period the local officials of Truro expressed concern 
over the possible growth impacts of sewering an environmentally fragile 
area like Beach Point, and problems with sewer construction in areas with 
high water table and unstable soils. A means of growth control should 
be included in any facility plan for this reason, and altemtive collec- 
tion systems including pressure sewers should be investigated. 



3-29 



For the remainder of the town septage treatment and on-site system 
management should be adequate to abate wastewater problems. It is 
recommended in the "Neighborhood Solutions and Septage Treatment" 
section that Truro join with Wellfleet for a septage facility and re- 
quest participation by the North Truro Air Force Base in the regional 
facility plan. A joint application with Wellfleet for state funding 
for a shared professional health agent is also recommended. (See "On- 
site System Management") 

Water Quality Monitoring 

As discussed in the draft plan, a segment of the Pamet River is con- 
taminated with coliform bacteria. The Mass Division of Water Pollution 
Control has suggested that the source is a backyard farm on South Pamet 
Road. The town should seek further assistance from the County Health 
Department in investigating the problem, and request assistance from 
the Soil Conservation Service in control of agricultural runoff. 

Further investigation is also recommended of the water quality impacts 
of the landfill and septage pits. The town should contact CCPEDC for 
technical assistance on setting up a monitoring system. 



3-30 



Wellfleet 

Wastewater Management 

The Town of Wellfleet is similar to Eastham and Truro in that it has 
a high influx of summer population and has no municipal water or 
sewer system. The major difference is that Wellfleet has a relatively 
densely populated downtown area which is indicated in the Wastewater 
Problem Areas Map as a "Category 2" problem area. This means that up- 
grading of failing cesspools to septic tank systems is necessary, but 
that a small neighborhood sewer system may be needed. A septage treat- 
ment facility is needed to serve the remainder of the town. 

The town should refer to the section entitled "Neighborhood Solutions 
and Septage Treatment" for more information on the costs and range Of 
alternatives which are available to the town. It is recommended that 
the town regionalize with Truro for construction of a septage faci- 
lity. Since Wellfleet has a major Category 2 problem area it would be 
the most appropriate town to be a lead agency and conduct a full 201 
facility plan within the town boundaries. 

On-site system installation and management should be administered by a 
professional health agent. Wellfleet should join with either Eastham 
or Truro and apply for state funds for a shared health agent. (see 
"On-site System Management" discussion.) 

Water Supply 

There is an immediate need for a public water supply in Wellfleet Cen- 
ter. This is evident from the high density of development and has been 
documented in the past through tests performed by the County Health 
Department. While it may be in the somewhat distant future, the possi- 
bility of Wellfleet's participating in regional water supply development 
cannot be dismissed. As in the case with Eastham and Truro, the 
optimum location for municipal wellfields would be in the portions of 
the town protected by the National Seashore Park. 

Since Wellfleet is one of the few Cape Cod towns which has no water 
supply engineering plan, a combined water and sewer study would be 
desirable. The town should seek assistance from CCPEDC in obtaining 
funding for such a study. The town should protect future water supply 
development areas, and retain town-owned parcels near National Park 
large enough to serve as wellsites. 

Monitoring Needs 

The landfill is located in a relatively unpopulated area at present. 
Since no public water supply is available, however, determining the 
direction of flow from the landfill is recommended. The town should 
also investigate possible effects on the Herring River from leachate. 
A monitoring system for any new landfill site would be a priority to 
be set up at the time of construction. 



3-31 



The town is encouraged to seriously consider regional solid waste 
disposal options prior to relocating the landfill. 



Planning Coordination 

The town planning board is presently revising its master plan. Water 
quality should be a priority consideration, and should be coordinated 
through the establishment of a water quality advisory committee (see 
"Management Agencies") . 



3-32 



Yarmouth 

Yarmouth is extensively developed in suburban densities throughout the 
southern half of the town. Wastewater management problems are reported 
to be severe in the commercial zone along Route 28. Water supply pro- 
tection is also of critical concern to the town since development is 
rapidly encroaching upon existing and future wellfield areas. 

Wastewater Management 

Facilities plans were prepared for the town by Whitman £ Howard in 1975 
and 1976, proposing a 4 MGD sewer system and a Purifax sept age treatment 
plant. An Environmental Impact Study has been underway in 1977-78 to 
re-evaluate these proposals. The following preliminary findings of the 
impact study have been presented to the town. 

--The site purchased by the town for the treatment plant does not 
meet requirements for rapid infiltration beds because of high 
water table. The area may be acceptable for spray-irrigation. 

--The sewers proposed for residential areas are not cost-effective, 
On-site system rehabilitation in problem areas is recommended, and 
would be eligible for funding. 

--A sewer to serve the commercial Route 28 strip is necessary and 
cost-effective. The projected plan is approximately 0.5 MGD. 

--Of the three alternative sites considered in the original engi- 
neering plan, A and C would be hydrologically acceptable but are 
upgradient of existing and future water supplies. Advanced waste- 
water treatment may be necessary to dishcarge in these areas. 
Site B is too small. 

--The purifax process would need to be re-evaluated because of 
hazardous by-products. Combined treatment of septage and sewage 
is preferable. 

--Regionalization with Barnstable, (i.e. purchase of capacity at 
the Barnstable treatment plant) is desirable. 

It is recommended that the town immediately investigate the possibil- 
ities for regionalization with Barnstable. A separate septage facility 
would then be necessary, and regionalization with Dennis should be con- 
sidered. The town's attention is called to the section of this plan 
dealing with "septage treatment and disposal." Composting is tne recom- 
mended process for separate septage facilities. The rehabilitation of 
the railroads currently underway could make importation of sawdust for 
a compost facility feasible if local sources of woodchips and sawdust 
are not adequate. 



3-33 



If regionalization with Barnstable is not politically feasible, the 
next best alternative under the 208 criteria is use of Site D for 
spray/irrigation or overland flow. The lagoon treatment process 
proposed by the EIS to precede spray irrigation has several important 
advantages over other methods. It is easy to operate and main- 
tain and produce almost no sludge. The spray irrigation or over- 
land flow would not threaten any public wells and meets 208 criteria 
as the preferred method. 

The town has been cautioned that use of Site D requires further in- 
vestigation, and that it would not be able to handle flows from any 
additional source areas. It has been suggested, however, that a 
recent proposal for a golf course in an adjacent area could provide 
for future expansion since the spray irrigation process could be 
used to maintain the golf course. EPA policies strongly favor waste- 
water management services that enhance recreational opportunities 
for the community. Other expansion irrigation sites should also 
be investigated, including existing golf courses, power line ease- 
ments and Site A. 

Whether the town proceeds with Barnstable or site D, however, it 
must be aware that both of these alternatives are feasible only 
because the EIS is considering a very limited sewering program. 
Aggressive efforts to upgrade and maintain on-site systems will be 
necessary if creation of new sewer needs is to be avoided. 

Without Barnstable and Site D the town may be faced with very expen- 
sive options, involving advanced waste treatment. It is not likely 
that either site is large enough for a treatment plant and spray 
irrigation with suitable buffers. If further evaluation reveals that 
physical/chemical treatment is necessary, the state and EPA should 
support it with full funding. 



On-Site System Management 

The town has a full-time professional health agent who is already 
implementing many of the 208 recommendations on on-site system 
management. Upgrading of on-site systems south of Route 28 prior 
to conversion to year-round uses should be a priority. As soon as 
construction of the sewage/septage facilities is underway, the 
town should begin setting up a mandatory on-site system pumping 
program. 

Another concern for on-site system management is the hilly terrain 
and wet soils in the northern sections of the town, presenting mod- 
erate to severe limitations on on-site system uses. Non- structural 
controls, including control of multi-family dwellings and possibly 
larger lot zoning, could help to prevent the development of serious 
problems. The health agent should advise the planning board in 
implementing such recommendations. 



3-34 



Water Supply Protection 

There has been considerable activity recently in the town regarding 
water supply protection. The water department is working on imple- 
menting a 208 Watershed Protection District bylaw, and the planning 
board is currently preparing a major zoning change to reduce densities 
in the vicinity of existing and potential wellfields. CCPEDC will 
work closely with the town in effecting immediate controls. 

Water quality monitoring and plume location at the landfill site are 
also essential, since the landfill is potentially upgradient of wells 
10 and 11. Further cooperation from the state DPW will also be neces- 
sary to resolve sodium problems in wells #1, 2 and 3 near the Union 
Street exit from Rte. 6. The town is referred to the water supply 
discussions in the body of the plan. "Potential Water Supply Develop- 
ment Areas" appear to be limited in this town because of existing land 
uses. A total water supply management plan should be worked out through 
the efforts of the water quality advisory committee. 

Water Quality Planning Coordination 

The town has recently formed an Ad Hoc water quality advisory committee 
to review progress of the Environmental Impact Study and to help coor- 
dinate efforts to implement a watershed protection areas bylaw. 

Land Use and Growth Control 

The town will have to face growth control issues in the implementation 
of its sewer construction project and water quality planning efforts. 
If limited sewage treatment and disposal capacities are available, the 
towrTwill have to pass special bylaws to control the rate of hook-up 
and to allocate capacities to abutters. Stringent measures should be 
taken in other parts of the town to avoid the development of sewer needs. 

The planning board is proposing to eliminate the grandfather clause on 
substandard lots south of Route 28, and should also consider a "Seasonal 
Residential District" overlay to control conversions. (Please see "Land 
Use Control" section.) Whether or not growth rate controls will be 
necessary to ensure a protected water supply will need further investi- 
gation in the water quality planning process. 



3-35 



Public 
Participation 



Draft Plan Review Process 




Draft Plan Review Process 

A detailed discussion of the 208 public participation program, presented 
in Appendix A of the Draft Plan reviews the means used to encourage pub- 
lic participation during the preparation of the draft plan and how this 
participation affected the development of the draft plan. Since publi- 
cation of the draft plan in May 1978, formal public review has involved 
citizens and officials in every Cape town in an intensive effort to ob- 
tain detailed and thorough comments on the draft recommendations. 

In May, the CCPEDC requested that a 208 Draft Plan Review Committee be 
established in every town. The committee was to be composed of the CCPEDC 
member or alternate, APAC member, a member of the board of selectmen and 
other appropriate town boards chosen by the selectmen. It was suggested 
that a member of the planning board, conservation commission, water 
commissioners, board of health, department of public works or sewer commis- 
sioners be included. Thirteen of the fifteen towns organized such a Draft 
Plan Review Committee. In certain towns membership was limited and the 
committee only met once or twice. Mashpee and Well fleet did not have 
active review committees. Most of the committees carried out a careful 
review of the draft plan and evaluated the impact of the draft recommen- 
dations on their town. 

The 208 staff stressed the importance of the committee's considering 
whether each management recommendation would be supported in their town 
and if not, what changes might be made to improve the recommendation. A 
member of the 208 staff met with each of the organized committees at 
least once during the review period to answer questions and to provide 
guidance for their review. 

The 208 staff also provided the committees with a questionnaire on the 
draft plan to assist them in providing detailed responses to the draft 
recommendations. Most of the committees chose to fill out the question- 
naire, others provided separate comments. The chart that follows indicates 
how many times the committee met, whether a local public meeting was 
sponsored by the committee and whether the questionnaire or comments 
were submitted by the committee or by a committee representative (s) . A 
list of the committee members by town follows the chart. 



While the staff believes the questionnaires were helpful in eliciting 
comments from most towns, many of the comments discussed at the committee 
meetings (in the presence of 208 staff) were not included when the 
groups completed the questionnaires. Emphasis of concern or support by 
the group members was also lost in the questionnaire results. However, 
a general impression of the committees' concerns is shown in the question- 
naire results presented in Volume 2 of the final plan. The 208 staff was 
very gratified by the responsiveness of public officials in carrying out 
the review of the draft plan. 

In addition to the work of the draft plan review committees, the 208 
staff held three public meetings during the public review period, which 
was formally closed on July 20, 1978. The first two introductory 
meetings were held in Orleans on May 30, 1978 for the lower Cape and in 
Barnstable on June 1, 1978 for the mid and upper Cape. A final public 
meeting was held to review public comments in Dennis on June 28, 1978. 



4-1 



►J 






U t3 


•H 


r-i 


r- < 


0) 


« 


s 


a. 


oo 




c 


rH 


•H 


CO 


p 


o 


a> 


o 


0) 


►J 


S 



T3 
CD 
P 
P 

•H 

6 

% 

c/> 

+-> 

c 

CD 



X 



X 



X 



a> 
<d 
p 
p 

•H 



o 

u 



O X 







O 






CD 




> 






fH 


X 


•H 






H 


JO 


P 


0> 




rt 




a3 


P 




C 


T3 


P 


03 




c 





C 


f-i 




o 


p 


CD 


03 


t/J 


H 


P 


V) 


a. 


?-t 


P 


•H 





CD 


CD 


CO 


s 


^ 


C/) 


Xi 


a> 


X 


a, 




s 


3 


3 


CD 


^ 


CD 



X 



cw a; OS 



U X 

•H X 
ccj 

C T3 CD 

C <D (D 

O P P 

•H P P 

P -H -H 

co E g 

CD X fc 

3 3 O 

COD U 





P 






CD 






s 






CO 






CD 




C/) 


£ 




W 


•H 




W 


H 




H 






H 






i— i 






«j 






O 






CJ 


CD 
CD 




3£ 


P 




w 


P 


-o 


h-l 


•H 


CD 


> 


£ 


E 


w 


6 


R 


Q£ 


o 


o 




u 


tu 



X 



X 



X 



X 



X 



o 



CM 



to 



CN1 



IT) 



tO 



O 



LO 



tO l-l 



CN 



to 
o 

CN 



to 



X 



X 



X 



X 



X 



X 



< 


o 


a£ 


X 


tu 


< 


< 


oa 


03 


CQ 


u 


a 


u 


tu 



OS 
O 



Oh 



< 

c/> 



DC 
E- 



W 



< 

>- 



4-2 



DRAFT PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEL MEMBERS 



BARNSTABLE 



Dorothy Donaldson 
John Kelly 
Abraham Michaels 
Mary Montagna 
Tom Mullen 

Ed Murphy 
Lester Sherman 
Ed Taylor 
Arlene Wilson 



CCPEDC 

Health Agent 

DPW Superintendent 

Board of Selectmen Chairman 

Barnstable Fire £ Water District Superintendent, 

APAC 
Planning Board 

Water Pollution Control Board Chairman 
Board of Selectmen 
Conservation Commission Chairman 



BOURNE 



Edward Brady 

Rev. Philip Jacobs 

Barry Johnson 

Robert Kildoff 

Ted Linhares 

Christopher O'Donnell 

Peter Richter 



Planning Board Chairman, APAC 

CCPEDC 

Board of Selectmen Chairman 

Finance Committee Chairman 

Bourne Water District Superintendent 

CCPEDC 

Board of Health Chairman 



BREWSTER 



William Craig 
Bob Finch 
Chester Majewski 
Chauncey Reed 
Jane Wagner 



CCPEDC 

Former Conservation Commission 

Health Agent 

Planning Board, APAC 

Civic Action Group 



CHATHAM 



W. Applegate 
Thorne W. Campbell 
George Collins 
Wilfred Goodridge 
Edward T. Harrington 
Charles Mitchell 
Thomas Pennypacker II 
Woodman Perine 
Joyce Thompson 
Arthur Villepique 



Water Pollution Control Board 

Board of Selectmen 

Water Pollution Control Board 

Planning Board, APAC 

Board of Selectmen Chairman 

Health Agent 

Board of Selectmen 

Natural Resources Advisory Committee 

Conservation Commission, APAC 

Natural Resources Advisory Committee 



DENNIS 



Al Andrews 
Constance Bechard 
Theodore Dumas 
Curt Livingston 
Don Moncevicz 
Paul True 



Water District Engineer 

Planning Board Chairman 

Health Director 

Conservation Commission Chairman 

APAC 

Water Commissioner 



4-3 



EASTHAM 



John Alexander 
Margaret Collins 
Henry Lind 
Jackson Nelson 
Richard Nickerson 
Wallace Ruckert 
Donald Sander 
Laura Underhill 
Herbert Whit lock 



Building Inspector/Health Agent 
Conservation Commission 
Natural Resources Agent 
Board of Health Chairman 
Planning Board Chairman 
Board of Selectmen 
Dump Study Committee 
Board of Selectmen Chairman 
APCC --interested citizen 



FALMOUTH 



Richard Bennett 
Leonard Costa 
George Hampson 
Bill Lisky 
Heather McMurtrie 
Fred Turkington 
Virginia Valiela 
Richard Witt 
Harold Zinn 



DPW Commissioner 

Health Agent 

Planning Board Chairman 

CCPEDC 

Board of Selectmen Chairman 

Growth Policy Committee Chairman 

Recycling and Disposal Committee 

DPW Superintendent . 

Conservation Commission 



HARWICH 



Dr. Carl Clapp 
Norman Clarke 
Haydn Greenhalgh 
Irving Lightbaum 
David Thyng 



APAC 

interested citizen 

Board of Selectmen 

Interested citizen 

Building Inspector/Health Agent 



ORLEANS 



Paul Daniels 
Charles Darling 
William Holland 
Sandra Libby 
Tom Nickerson 
Lauren Peterson 
C. Francis Richardson 
Edward Rohmer 



Cesspool pumper 

Finance Committee Chairman 

APAC 

Asst. Shellfish Warden 

Board of Selectmen 

Water Superintendent 

Water Commissioner 

Planning Board Chairman 



PROVINCETOWN 



Eileen Andrews 
Charles Cobb 
Tom Hi g ley 
Page McMahon 
Jeff Parker 



Health Agent 
Town Manager 
Planning Board 
Water Commissioner 
Grant Coordinator 



4-4 



SANDWICH 

Chester Cross 
Robert Ellis 
J. Louis Roberti 
William Taylor 
William Thompson 
Albert Torrey 
Norman Welch 

TRURO 

Emmons Brown 

Steve Burke 

Louis Chiampa 

Dr. Charles Davidson 

Rachael Giese 

Edward Oswalt 

Albert Silva 

YARMOUTH 



Planning Board Chairman 

Board of Health Chairman 

Board of Selectmen Chairman 

Town Engineer 

CCPEDC 

Conservation Commission 

Housing Authority Chairman 



Planning Board Chairman 

Conservation Commission 

Building Inspector/Health Agent 

Conservation Commission Chairman 

Conservation Commission 

Board of Selectmen Chairman 

Beach Point Property Owners Assn. Chairman 



Roger Edwards 
Charlotte Ellis 
Dale Karnes 
Thomas Kelly 
Luther Long 
Harry Schroeder 



Water Commissioner 

Planning Board 

Health Agent 

CCPEDC, Water Commissioner, APAC 

Yarmouth Taxpayers Assn. 

Yarmouth Taxpayers Assn. 



4-5 



Unfortunately, this final meeting was premature, since it had been 
scheduled prior to mailing the draft plans and there was a delay in the 
mailing. Therefore, the announcement of the 45-day review period in 
the Federal Register was published later than anticipated. Many of the 
committees had not completed their review at this early time. In ad- 
dition to the meetings with the review committees, the staff also met 
with interested organizations during the review period including the 
associated boards of health, the Yarmouth Taxpayers Association and the 
Outer Cape Environmental Association. 

Four hundred copies of the draft plan were printed and approximately 225 
were available for use on the Cape. The remaining 175 copies were used 
for review by Federal and State agencies. Each town received 6-8 copies 
of the draft plan for use by the review committees. Copies were sent to 
each Cape Cod Library for public use. Lending copies were also main- 
tained at the CCPEDC office and were in considerable demand throughout 
the review period. 

A summary of the draft plan in newspaper form was also published (3,000 
copies) and distributed by mail to the 500 interested citizens on the 208 
newsletter mailing list, at public meetings, at town halls and other 
public places and through interested citizen groups. This summary was 
very well received and proved very helpful in bringing information about 
the draft plan to a broad range of citizens. Substantial media exposure 
was given to the draft plan, Local Draft Plan Review Committees and the 
public meetings on the draft plan throughout the review period. A file 
of newspaper clippings on the draft plan review period is maintained at 
the CCPEDC office. 

Through these various efforts, a number of interested citizens outside 
of the formal review committees, were encouraged to review the draft 
plan and made their own comments, presented in the Volume 2 "Public Com- 
ments and Responses." This volume includes comments by individuals, 
local review committees, interested organizations, regional, state and 
federal agency personnel. Responses to these comments indicate speci- 
fically how the 208 staff has modified the plan to incorporate suggested 
changes or additions. 

During the review period, particularly at the public and committee meet- 
ings, comments were largely supportive of the major directions and 
recommendations presented in the draft plan. Many individuals commented 
that they felt the plan was very comprehensive and believed that the 
major thrusts of the plan--to protect critical water resources and to 
improve on-site system management—were very valuable and appropriate 
for Cape Cod. 

Many citizens also commented that the plan needed to include further 
information in three main areas: road salt application and storage, 
water conservation and gas and oil storage. In addition, further details 
were requested in the area of on-site system maintenance, septage and 
sludge disposal. The final plan has included considerably more inform- 
ation and more specific recommendations in these areas in response to 
the concerns voiced by citizens during the review period. 



4-6 



Public participation in the preparation of both the draft and final 
plans has been invaluable in developing recommendations that are mean- 
ingful and implementable. Throughout the planning process involved 
citizens provided needed local information, valuable technical exper- 
tise, and insights into whether a particular approach will be acceptable 
to other citizens. They helped to broaden concerns, focus attention on 
specific problems, and resolve conflicts. These valuable contributions 
have been the basis of the final plan recommendations and must be a 
continuing asset as the 208 program enters its implementation pha^e. 

As suggested in the draft plan, it is the recommendation of the final 
plan, that a permanent Water Resources Advisory Council be established. 
The Advisory Council would be advisory to the Cape Cod Planning and 
Economic Development Commission and would be comprised of a member from 
each Cape Cod town named by the board of selectmen (or the Water Quality 
Advisory Committee). Town members should be knowledgeable of the water 
quality problems of the town and preferably be a member of a town board 
responsible for water quality related matters. Other regional organi- 
zations could also serve on the Water Resources Advisory Council at the 
request of the CCPEDC. The following regional organizations are sug- 
gested for inclusion on the Water Resources Advisory Council: 

Associated Boards of Health 

Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod 

Cape Cod Association of Professional Engineers 

Cape Cod Builders £ Contractors 

Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce 

Massachusetts League of Women Voters, Cape Cod Chapters 

(one member chosen) 
Region VII Planning Boards 

Other regional, state and federal agencies and organizations may also 
be requested to serve in an advisory capacity by CCPEDC: 

Barnstable Conservation District 

Barnstable County Extension Service 

Barnstable County Health Department 

Cape Cod National Seashore 

Environmental Defense Fund 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering 

Massachusetts Department of Water Pollution Control 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Geological Survey 

U.S. Soil Conservation Service 

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute 



4-7 



Appendices 



► 



APPENDIX A 

DRAFT PLAN ERRATA SHEET 

Page 

2-1 Para 2, sentence 2 

2-4 Para 2, sentence 1 



Para 3 $ 4 



Correction 

Change to: "Cape Cod is a peninsula ex- 
tending 40 miles seaward from the coast 
of Massachusetts." 

Change to: "The remainder of the Cape is 
characterized by coarse sands, some tidal 
marsh, peat areas, and occasional slowly 
permeable glacial till." 

Add the following sentence after sentence 
#1: "There are some areas of consolidated 
glacial till referred to as fragipan." 

Should be replaced by the following: "The 
general soil associations found on the 
Cape are Carver-Muck-Hinckley which are 
found in the outwash plain from Bourne and 
Falmouth to Harwich and Brewster; Canton- 
Plymouth- Carver found in moraine areas 
from Falmouth to Brewster. The lower Cape 
from Chatham to Truro are characterized by 
Dukes-Carver-Tidal Marsh and Provincetown 
is Dune Land-Tidal Marsh- Beach (US DA, SCS , 
1978). 

"Nine of the fifteen towns have detailed 
soil surveys prepared by the Soil Conser- 
vation Service. These surveys provide 
soil data for only the upper three feet of 
soil and with the scale of these maps, it 
is not possible to delineate areas smaller 
than about 4 acres. While these maps are 
not an accurate indication of whether a 
particular lot is suitable for on-site 
disposal, they do provide a general indi- 
cation of soil suitability for on-lot 
wastewater disposal to assist in general 
planning purposes. Combined with soil 
information gathered by the health agent 
in conducting soil tests under Title 5, 
these maps can be useful to the town in 
determining the need for limiting lot 
sizes and for using special care in the 
enforcement of Title 5 within these areas. 
See Appendix L, "Guidelines for Lot Size 
Determinations for Single Family Dwellings' 
in the SCS publication, Guidelines for 
Soil and Water Conservation in Urbanizing 
Areas of Massachusetts, 1975. 



A-l 



APPENDIX A (Page 2) 



Page 

2-10 Para 3, sentence 1 



3-28 Map Symbol of chloro- 
phyll-a concentrations 



3-45 (In response to Esther 
Snyder's comment) 



3-50 Line 17 



3-51 Para 2, line 6 

Para 4, line 5-7 



Correction 

Chatham fishing fleet is anchored in 
Aunt Lydia's Cove, not Stage Harbor. 

The symbol for the third category, 
"Noticeable Enrichment," should be 

iA 

Add asterisk (*) beside 4 (x)'s indi- 
cating presence of phthalate compounds 
in Woods Hole effluent. 

Add explanation: "The use of plastic 
tubing could not be avoided during sam- 
pling of the groundwater percolate at 
Woods Hole, which probably explains the 
appearance of these (phthalate) com- 
pounds." (Slimak.S Harris, 1977) 

Observed Coliform Concentrations in 
Falmouth Inner Harbor- -Add reference: 
From: Division of Water Pollution 
Control, (1976T 



Correct table number is 3.14. 



far 



Insert observation well numbers: (1) 
downgradient of existing landfill, 
(3,4,5) in old landfill, (6) immediately 
downgradient of existing landfill, (7,8) 
downflow of septage pits, (9) upflow of 
present landfill. 



Para 5, line 4 



3-53 Table misnumbered. 



Table 3.14 



Should read: 35.5 to 532.5 mg/1 chloride 
(C1-), 79.8 to 362 mg/1 sodium (Na+) . . . 

"Leachate Characteristics" should be 
#3.14. The correct Table 3.13, "Cal- 
culation of Mean Concentrations in 
Runoff and Harbor Water after a Standard 
Storm" is included in this errata sec- 
tion. 

"Leachate Characteristics" should be 
corrected in the following ways: 

--all decimals in columns (3) "Average 
Value" and (4) "Maximum Value" 
should be replaced with commas. 

--the note should read "All data (with 
the exception of pH values) are in 
milligrams per liter. 



A- 2 



APPENDIX A (Page 3) 
Page 



3-54 Table misnumbered, 



Correction 

"Concentration of Constituents in Well 
Samples at Dennis Landfill" should be 

#3.15. 

Correct Sample Numbers should be: 1,3,4, 
5,6,7,8,9; there is no # 2 or 10. 

"Modal Ranges or Mean" for N/NO is 
(.04-. 22). 

Add footnote: Well Positions: (1) far 
downgradient of existing landfill. 
(3,4,5) in old landfill. (6) immediately 
downgradient of existing landfill. (7,8) 
downflow of septage pits, (9) upflow of 
present landfill. 



5-37 #3 should be changed 
as follows: 



#4 should be changed 
as follows: 



3. Towns will implement overall density 
requirements of one dwelling unit per 
40,000 to 60,000 sq. ft. in all public 
water supply recharge areas. 

4. Towns will implement density require- 
ments of one dwelling unit per 40,000 sq. 
ft. in all areas relying on private wells, 
around and upgradient of ponds and 
coastal embayments . 



#8 should be changed 
as follows: 



7-15 Para 1, line 8 



8. Towns may wish to prohibit construc- 
tion of buildings in environmentally 
critical areas even when sewer service 
may be available. 

The word "favorable" should be changed 
to "foreseeable." 



> 



A- 3 



OS 
O 

co 

Q 
OS 
< 

Q 



00 



os 
< 

OS 

< 



OS 

o 

CO 
OS 



© 



Q 

<5 rt 



O 
2 

X 
OS 



U 



CO 

o 

I— I 
OS 

2 

LU 

u 

2 

o 
u 



o 



< 

u 

< 



X 

E 
< 

CO 

(/] 
-3 
Fh 
03 
-O 
C 
o3 
+-> 
CO 

m 

c 



C 

o 



03 



c 
o 

T3 
<U 
t/i 

o3 
CO 



to 



cm 



C 

•H 
!/) 

03 
JO 

0) 
60 o3 

j* c 



lo 

to 

to 



<3- 
1-- 



X 

03 

Jh 

Cm 





J3 

u 

0) 

Oh 

t/> 

T3 



o 

m 

X 

13 



03 
T3 
E 
O 
1/) 

o 

5h 
03 



5h 

C 

c 



4-J 

O 



03 



CD 
OO 
03 



o 



03 03 

+-> +-> 

O O 

H H 



Q 

LU 
> 

oi 
w 

CO 

c 



E- 



J cu 

< u 

u 2 

o o 

-J CJ 



en 
Xj 

03 

-a 

to 
cm 

to 



If) 

E 

o 
+-> 
m 

c 
a> 

+-» 

JO 



C 
cd 



CO 

2 

o 



2 

uU 
U 
2 

O 
CJ 

C3 



a 
< 
o 

os 
o 

H 
CO 

X 
C 
< 



o 
+J 

03 

U w - 

C < 

(/) -H " 

C o3 
C CO • 
oJ- 
X 
X 



u 
o 

JO Jh 

03 +-> 

X 03 

3 

U 03 

+-> CO 

in 
< 



c 
o 

•H 

+-> 

3 



6 



in 

e 
o 

•H 

+-> u 

03 
5h +j 



+-» 

C 

u 

c 
o 



03 
E 

O 60 
E 



u co 

T3 C 

03 -H 

O 

-J 



E 
0) o 

> 4-> s~ 
<D CO E 

c v 
TD 03 

03 a> 
o s 



o 

<4h 
(/) 

c 
o 

•H 

•p 
03 

+-> 

C 

<u 
u 

c 
o 
u 



93 

x -a 

•H 

c o 

03 if) 
X 

r-i F-l 

03 "3 
•H 

O 60 

F-i J* 

a> \. 

E 60 

E E 
O ^< 
U 



+J 

fH C 

<u o 

+-> 3 

03 +-> 

E +-> 

o c 

+-> o 

CO u 



CO 

1 o 



I O 



IT, 1— I 



m 



rsi 






(Nl 

1 o 
1 o 



o 
o 



o m 

r— ( LO 



O LO 

CM •«t 



LO 


O 


I— 1 


1 CM 


O 


r^ 


1 O 


to 


LO 



C 



to 

o 



CM 



vO 

c 
o 
o 



o 
o 
o 



o 
o 



If) 

c 



* 
(/) 

c 



to 

c 

•H 



C CNI 

-H O 

o c 



1/5 

c 



10 

c 



* 
If) 

c 



1/3 

c 



to 

CM 



o 



LO 



to 

vO 



LO O CO -3" 

0000 



co 



tO i— I © (Nl o o 



'CO 



00 r- 



LO 
LO 

to 



CT> 

to 



(Nl 



v£3 
(N 



to 



C7> 
© 



00 
r-- 



co 



(Nl 



co 
o 

LO 



"3- 
cn 



cn 



co 



© LO rj- 

(Nl © O 



© 



LO tO 



© 
© 



© © 

© CO 
© (Nl 



© 
CO 
LO 



© 



• t— i © 

tO (Nl 1— t 



CO 
LO 



© 

(Nl 



1— I .—I <N) 



© 
© 
© 

(Nl 

(NJ 



© 

to 



CO 



LO 

to 



© sO LO 
CM © O 

LO r-i .— I 



LO 



r^ 



(Nl r-l 



LO 

q q n- to ■^r 

OOOOXT35H 3 
COCJO-22UUU 






JO 

a. 





^c 


!h 




O 


O 




(4H 


Uh 




•H 


•H 




1— 1 


l-H 




O 


O 




u 


CJ 




pH 


l-H 




03 


03 




+J 


O 


c 


O 


a 


M 


H 


u. 



c 

03 

u 



c 

60 
»H 

C 



c 



A-4 



APPENDIX B 



MODEL DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULING BYLAW 



Development Scheduling 

The Building Inspector shall issue building permits for construction 
of new dwelling units in subdivisions or multi-family structures 

approved after , or occupancy permits for initial use 

of plots in a mobile home park approved after , only 

under one or more of the following circumstances: 

a. Permit issuance will not result in more than dwelling units 

or mobile home plots having been authorized* within a twenty-four 
month period for that development and for developments on contiguous 
land which has been in the same ownership at any time subsequent to 
July 1, 1977. 

b. Permit issuance will not result in more than percent of the 

dwelling units or mobile home plots potentially allowed in the subdi- 
vision, multi-family development, or mobile home park having been 
authorized* within a twenty-four month period. 

c. Permit issuance will not result in more than new dwelling units 

plus mobile home plots having been authorized* townwide within a twenty- 
four month period. 

d. Permit issuance is for a subdivision lot exempted from these require- 
ments. A lot becomes exempted from these requirements on the date so 
designated for the lot on a development schedule, if any, which has been 
approved by the Planning Board and recorded with the subdivision plan 
which created the lot. Planning Board approval of a development schedule 
shall be granted provided that (1) the schedule exempts not more than 

% of the potential dwelling units in the subdivision within the 

first two years following definitive plan endorsement, (2) in each year 
thereafter, the schedule adds to the exempted category not more than 

% of the total number of potential dwelling units in the subdivision 

and (3) in the opinion of the Planning Board, the development sequence 
established by the schedule is not arbitrary or unreasonable. A lot 

may also be exempted from these requirements if the Planning Board, after 
consulting with the Housing Authority, grants a Special Permit upon its 
determination that such exemption is essential to the feasibility of a 
development which serves salient local housing needs and is to be subsi- 
dized under a state or federal program for low or moderate- income housing. 



*exclusive of unutilized authorizations which have lapsed or have been 
withdrawn. 



A-5 



APPENDIX C 

EARTH REMOVAL BYLAW 

Mansfield, Mass. 



In Agriculture, Business A Business B Business C and Industrial Dis- 
tricts earth removal, which shall mean the transfer of quarried stone, 
stone, and gravel or loam from one parcel of property to another, is 
permitted as a special permit by the Board of Appeals subject to the 
following conditions: 

1. A duly submitted application for said special permit shall be 
comprised of the following: 

a. Properly completed application form which shall include 
the following: 

i. Estimate of the quantity of gravel to be removed from 
the site. 

■ 

ii. Length of operation (give dates), 
iii. Proposed travel routes 
iv. Proposed daily hours of operation. 

b. A survey and engineering plan properly drawn, at a horizontal 
scale of 1" - 40', on tracing cloth by a Registered Professional 
Civil Engineer and Registered Professional Land Surveyor, four 
(4) copies of said plan shall be submitted to the Board of 
Appeals and shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 

i. A perimeter plan of the property showing the name of all 
immediate abuttors as taken from the most recent tax list 
and the name and address of the record owner. 

ii. Existing topography based on a current survey showing two 
foot contour intervals. Elevations should be related to 
the Mansfield Vertical Control System. 

iii. A lot of soil borings, the number of borings taken will 
vary with the size and geological make-up of the site, 
shall be a minimum of one (1) per acre. All borings shall 
be taken to a minimum depth of four (4) feet below the 
proposed finished grade. 

iv. A topographical map showing final grades and drainage 
facilities after excavation. 

v. All proposed entrance and exit roads. 

vi. Limits of excavation. 



A-6 



: 






■ 



- ' 

ppea: 
iition 

lit; 



• 












' 














I 






h 
distance of two hundred (200) 

or shall be res; 
age on publii curing as a 






■" removed wi 
high water table. This ele\ 
th( shown on the topog] 

i. Limits of nation shall h 
vals of one hundred 

--d. A v cal co 
in a readily ac ble locati< 






j. No area shall be excavated so as to cause accumulation of 
free standing water. Permanent drainage shall be provided 
as needed in accordance with good conservation practices. 
Drainage shall not lead directly into streams or ponds. 

k. All topsoil and subsoil shall be stripped from the operation 
area and stock piled for use in restoring the area after 
the removal operation has ceased. 

1. Any temporary shelters or buildings erected on the premises 
shall be screened from public view. These structures shall 
be removed from the premises within thirty (30) days after 
they are no longer needed. 

m. No excavation shall be allowed closer than fifty (50) feet 
to a natural stream or body of water. Natural vegetation 
shall be left and maintained on the undisturbed land. 

n. If at any time during the period of operation, any of the 
above standards are not being complied with, the Building 
Inspector shall issue a cease order. 

All earth removal projects shall be subject to the following res- 
toration standards: 

a. No slope shall be left with a slope steeper than 4:1 
(horizontal to vertical). 

b. All debris, stumps, boulders, shall be disposed of in an 
approved location shown on the plan, buried and covered with 
a minimum of two (2) feet of soil. 

c. Within thirty (30) days following excavation final grading 
shall be established as shown on the approved topographical 
plan. 

d. Retained subsoil and topsoil shall be respread over the dis- 
turbed area to a minimum depth equivalent to the depth of 
topsoil on the site plan prior to the beginning of the oper- 
ation as determined by the soil boring data, or to a depth 
of five (5) inches, which ever is less. This soil shall be 
treated with three (3) tons of lime per acre and 1,000 pounds 
of 10-10-10 fertilizer per acre and seeded with a grass or 
legume mixture prescribed by the Conservation Commission. 
Trees or shrubs of prescribed species will be planted in 
order to provide screening, natural beauty, and to reduce 
erosion. The planted area shall be protected from erosion 
during the establishment period using good conservation 
practices . 



A- 8 



e. Upon completion of the operation, the land shall be left so the 
natural storm drainage leaves the property at the original natu- 
ral storm drainage points and so that the area of drainage to 
any one point is not increased. 

f. Within thirty (30) days after termination of gravel operations, 
all equipment, buildings, structures and unsightly evidence of 
operations shall be removed from the premises. 

g. An "as built" plan, prepared by a Registered Professional Land 
Surveyor showing all finished grades, depth of loam, drainage 
facilities, location of buried debris, and states that the land 
conforms with the original plan shall be prepared and approved 
by the Building Inspector, prior to the release of the perform- 
ance bond. 

Special permit for earth removal may be issued for an initial one 
(1) year period. One (1) renewal permit may be issued without a 
new hearing for one (1) year period, based upon satisfactory perform- 
ance of the provisions of the original permit. A performance bond 
in the amount of $3,000 shall be required for each acre on which the 
permit has been granted. This shall be released only after the land 
has been restored as outlined in paragraph 3. 

No earth removal operation shall be allowed unless it meets the re- 
quirements as outlined above and a special permit has been granted 
by the Board of Appeals, and a building permit has been issued by 
the Building Inspector. Nothing herein contained, however, shall 
prohibit the removal of stone, sand, loam, or gravel in connection 
with the construction of a building for which a building permit has 
been duly issued, or for the landscaping of a lot from which said 
stone, sand, loam, or gravel is removed, provided that the Building 
Inspector has been informed in writing of the changes to be made 
together with an accurate description of the parcel of land under 
consideration. When granting permission for the removal of surplus 
material, the Building Inspector shall inform the applicant in 
writing. 

a. The original and six (6) copies of the earth removal applica- 
tion shall be submitted to the Town Clerk, who shall give the 
applicant a dated receipt. Within three (3) days of receipt 
of said application the Town Clerk shall transmit the original 
and one (1) copy to the Board of Appeals and one (1) copy each 
to the Board of Health, Building Inspector, Planning Board and 
Conservation Commission. 

The Board of Appeals shall hold a public hearing on said 
application. If the Board of Appeals determines that said 
earth removal application complies with the purpose and 
specifications of this bylaw it shall approve the application 
with or without conditions; if the plan does not comply with 
the specifications of this bylaw it shall be disapproved, or 
approved with conditions that bring about compliance. 



A-9 



The Board of Appeals shall take action on said application 
within sixty (60) days from the date of submission. Fail- 
ure to act within sixty (60) days shall constitute approval - . 
A building permit shall not be issued in a case requiring an 
earth removal permit unless approval has been obtained or 
the sixty (60) days has elapsed. 

b. Following approval of the special permit by the Board of 
Appeals the applicant shall obtain a building permit from 
the Building Inspector. 



A- 10 



V) 

-a 
u 
o 
o 
a> 
u 







C 






O 






> 






c 






•H 






I-l 






•H 






cfl 






T3 






t/> 




(^ 


am 




OS 


M 




O 


o 




CJ 


o 




W 


5 




OS 


P 




X 


(/> 




OS 


rt 




o 


a. 




H 






2 


a> 




W 


Xi 




^ 


p 




HH 


<u 




UJ 


•H 




2 


> 




t— ( 


a) 




nJ 


h4 




o 






CO 


•k 




< 


X 




u 


I— 1 




X 


0) 


a 


*J 


o 




i—i 


as 




< 




X 


Q 


p 


hH 




w 


Q 


W 


cd 


2 


J 


0) 


W 


a 


H 


o, 
a. 


§ 


P 


< 


CO 


< 



u 



PL< 



h p 
co 



r-i X 

coo 

•H >H P 
Ifl (fl C 
O X <D 

^H X > 

U Oh C 



u 


<D 


o 


O 


p 


C 


c 


05 


a> 


i— i 


> 


rt 


c 


CQ 



w 



a> 

•H 
> 



a> 
a 



u 



t/1 

<0 
I— I 

03 
CO 



CQ 



r~\ X 

bfi oS U 

coo 

• H -H 4-> 

c to c 
a> x o 

PhX > 

O Oh B 



P 

o 

O 

Oh 



< 

O 

H 



X 

XI 

0) 

.-H 
05 
•H 
4-> 
•H 



0) 

p 

Q 



[14 



o5 



u 




2 


p 


i—i 


u 


Q 


3 


< 


-a 


3 


o 




a- 


^ 




u 




1— 1 




E- 




CO 




X 




os 


t/i 


o 


0) 


H 


X 


2 


o 


W 


c 


^ 


hH 


hH 


p 




o 


u 


<u 


2 


Lb 


i— i 




CO 




O 




►J 




u 






-* 




§ 




H 



Q 
OS 
O 

u 

OS 
CO 

X 

< 

a 

X 

w 

2 

2 

O 

CQ 

X 

OS 

o 

H 
2 



(N 



< 

u 

hH 
CO 

X 

ac 
o- 

o 



CO 

o 

-J 
u 

Q 

aS 

< 

os 
o 

Uh 



H 

o 






a) 

p 

3 



P 

t/> 

C 



i-H 
O 

u 
p 

Oh 

c 

O 

h< 
<u 

e 
< 



p 
o 

.—I 
p 

3 
O 



05 
P 

OS 



< 

u 

h- 1 0j 

CO 

X 
33 

Q- 

2 

hH 

2 

w 

O- 

o 
o 

H 

o- 

X 
OS 

o 

H 

2 

w 



ro 



O 

fH 
P 

c 
o 
u 

o 
o 
p 

CO 

-o 

•H 

3 
cr 

•H 
AS 

r-H 

3 
CQ 

U 

tS 

0) 

O 



o 

05 

h< 

O. 

-a 
C 



o 
a 

as I 



0) 

o 

3 

o 

CO 



A-ll 



APPENDIX E 



EXCERPTS FROM THE FAIRFAX COUNTY PLUMBING CODE 



Section 65-2-9 



Water Conservation 



In all new construction and in all repair and/or replacement of 
fixtures or trim, only fixtures and trim not exceeding the following 
flow rates and/or water usage shall be installed. These rates are 
based on a pressure at the fixture of 40 to 50 psi. 



Water closets, tank type 

Water closets, flushometer type 

Urinals, tank type 

Urinals, flushometer type 

Shower Heads 

Lavatory, sink faucets 



3.5 gal. per flush 



3.0 gal. 


per 


flush 


3.0 gal. 


per 


flush 


3.0 gal. 


per 


flush 


3.0 GPM 






4.0 GPM 







Lavatories for Public Use: Faucets of lavatories 
located in rest rooms intended for public use shall 
be of the metering, or self-closing type. 



Section 65-2-10 



Car Wash Installations 



(a) Car wash installations shall be equipped with a recycling 
system approved by the Administrative Authority. 



Source: Massachusetts Conference on Water Conservation, 1977 



A-12 



APPENDIX F 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 

The following additional publications were used to prepare the final 
plan: 



American Petroleum Institute, 1977. Recommended Practice for Bulk 
Liquid Stock Control at Retail Outlets , Washington, D.C. 

Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, 1978. Massa- 
chusetts Water Supply Policy Statement , Boston. 



National Fire Protection Association, 1972. Underground Leakage of 
F lammable § Combustible Liquids , NFPA No. 329, Boston. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1978. Water 
and Related Land Resources of the Coastal Region, Massachusetts , 
Boston. 



A- 13 



Watery 
Quality 

Manage ment 

Plan/EIS= 
For Cape Cod 



Volume 2 

Final Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement 

September 1978 













ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



and 



208 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN 



for 



CAPE COD 



omRm&fi 

60STOM PUBLIC LIBRARY 



VOLUME 2 



Prepared by: 
CAPE COD PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 
First District Court House 
Barnstable, Massachusetts 02630 

September 1978 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 
Region 1 
J.F.K. Federal Building 
Boston, Massachusetts 02203 



Responsible Officials: 



William R. Adams, Jr. q 



ii <;c. 



Regional Administrator 
EPA - Region 1 



J 



Alfred S. DeMott, Chairman 
Cape Cod Planning and Economic 
Development Commission 



Table of Contents 



INTRODUCTION 1 

PUBLIC COMMENTS 

CITIZENS AND ORGANIZATIONS 

Juliet Bernstein 2 

Basil Edwards 5 

William E. Holland 6 

Andrew M. Kamarck 8 

John A. Moser 10 

Thomas J. Mullen 14 

Harry Schroeder 17 

Esther A. Snyder 18 

James T. B. Tripp 22 

Virginia Valiela 27 

Barnstable Board of Health 28 

Barnstable Conservation Commission 32 

Chatham Board of Selectmen 33 

Dennis Board of Selectmen 46 

Harwich Draft Plan Review Committee 47 

Mashpee Board of Health 53 

Sandwich Board of Health 54 

Yarmouth Water Department 56 

Barnstable County Health Department 

Stetson Hall 57 

Esther G. Howes 59 

STATE AGENCIES 

Coastal Zone Management Office 61 

Department of Community Affairs 64 
Department of Environmental Quality Eng. , 

Southeast Region Office 66 

DEQE, Division of Air and Hazardous Materials 67 

Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 69 

Office of State Planning 70 

Massachusetts Department of Public Works 73 

Massachusetts Historical Commission 76 



FEDERAL AGENCIES 

Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation 

Service 77 

Department of Housing and Urban Development 78 

Department of the Interior 79 

Department of Transportation 87 



208 STAFF COMMENTS 



LOCAL DRAFT PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEES 



88 



QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY 103 

STAFF RESPONSES 123 



Introduction 



Following publication of the Draft Water Quality Management Plan/EIS 
for Cape Cod in May, EPA and CCPEDC sponsored a formal 45-day public 
review period. Interested citizens and officials were asked to pre- 
sent written comments on the draft plan during this period which was 
formally closed on July 20, 1978.. Many individuals, public officials 
and members of Local Draft Plan Review Committees attended meetings to 
discuss the draft plan recommendations and, after reviewing the draft 
plan, provided the comments that are presented in this volume of the 
Final Water Quality Management Plan/EIS for Cape Cod. 

All written comments submitted by citizens, local boards, citizen organ- 
izations, regional, state and federal agencies have been reproduced in 
full. Responses to these comments have also been prepared by the 208 
planning staff and are presented in this volume. Each comment that re- 
quired a response has been numbered and the staff response has been 
numbered correspondingly. 

Public comments are presented first, followed by state and federal agency 
comments. Individual comments are presented under the name of the indi- 
vidual who signed the comments (in alphabetical order). Town board 
comments are presented in alphabetical order by town. State and federal 
agency comments are presented in alphabetical order by agency. Staff 
responses to these comments follow these sections. 

The comments submitted by the Local Draft Plan Review Committees in re- 
sponse to the questionnaire have been compiled so that each town may 
compare its comments to those of the other towns. This summary of the 
local committees questionnaire responses follows all other comments and 
staff responses. In most cases, the questionnaire submitted, was com- 
pleted by the committee meeting as a group. However, in the case of 
Barnstable and Yarmouth, the committee members chose to fill out their 
answers individually. Since there is no adequate means of compiling 
these comments as a joint town response, the individual comments have 
been included in this compilation. Also, in the case of Sandwich, the 
committee did not fill out the questionnaire as a group but requested 
one member to submit a completed questionnaire on behalf of the group. 

All comments submitted prior to the publication of the final plan have 
been included in this volume but those submitted after September 1 did 
not provide adequate time for staff response. Any enclosures that accom- 
panied comment letters have not been reproduced in the final plan but are 
available for review at the CCPEDC office. 

As indicated in the Public Participation section of Volume 1, 
the staff has worked to incorporate the suggestions and comments sub- 
mitted by the public into the recommendations of the final plan. The 
responses to the public comments specifically indicate how the comments 
were accommodated. In certain instances, the staff has determined that 
the change requested is not warranted. In some cases, the change was 
not significant to the overall intent of the plan; in others, the staff 
differs with the opinion offered in the comment; and finally, there is not 
sufficient general support to make such a change at the present time. 



Public 
Comments 

Citizens and Organizations 
State Agencies 
Federal Agencies 



JULIET R. BERNSTEIN 

78 CHIPPING STONE RD. 
CHATHAM, MASS. 02633 



JUL Z i 



~ 7 ffi 



July 2k $ 1978 

Mrs. Sylvia ^aniels 

Cap© ^od Planning & Economic development Commission 

1st. ^istrict °ourt House 

Barnstable, :iass« 02630 

Dear °ylvia: 

I am sorry to be so lata In making my personal comments 

regarding the Draft Wastewater Management Program, so 

ably presented by -Paula iA agnu3en and you at the regional 

meeting in Orleans and the local meeting in Chatham early 

in June. I am sorry that the one in Chatham wa3 so poorly 

attended--an indication that the general public is either 

not aware, or else not concerned, about water management 

in our towns o 

I think that both you and Paula did a fine Job in organ- 
izing the meetings and answering all questions* I was 

most impressed* 

I went through bhe first half of the Draft Plan very 
carefully, making notes as I went along, but did not 
complete the second naif as carefully, an I had to return 
the report to the libraryd had had it long enough J)o 
although the plan i3 technical in nany parts, I believe 
it is easily understood by the ordinary eitizen, aa I 
consider myselfo 



page 2 — Bernstein 

Just ft minor poiafc: the Chatham fishing flaet is anchored 
in A unt kydia s Cove, rather than Staga Harborvsee pa^e 2-10) o ■*■ 

^he report commends ^aatham for its forward-looking 
approach in having had a study of its water system bj Met calf 
and Eddy several years ago* I read this report. ?he town did 
follow ono of tho recommendations when ic purchased a green 
area to protect our water system© 

A matter of ooncem to me is that the Chatham Water 
Company is privately owned --one of the faw # if not the only 
on* ■»» Cape C#d. As part of its water management program, 
the town should take over the company© Water i apply in r 
publia soncerno 

Because of Chatham's unique position on the ^ape© there 
is not too much land area -oo much of it is beln,3 developed 
without regard to the problems thac overdevelopment ckd. create© 
As an observer at "hathaai Planning ^oard neet:!nj;3 I \i*ri appalled 
at the auitfour of aubdi visions --many In the £10 South Chatham 
area, lb is t.'uo that; we somewhat ;ra«Lifi.i»d bbJU zzn'nx ^o 
ti-uit Its i* Eflff in many easaa(ba«auaa of tke mead to alaee 
eesapoola 100 feat fram wells on the same ar adjaining lets)* 
Hawever, I think greater attentian sheuld be paid ta zoning 
ta prevent water centaminatien© Toa great a density--in summer 
as wall as winter— can create prablemso 

Frestfish Creak is mentioned as polluted© Could nat the 
Aoma ^aundry© lacatad near the Creak, be a passible source af 
centaminatien- -and oauld nat some controls be made ta prevent 
such pellutien? 



i 



page 3 — Bernstein 

White and School House Pends are said to have not enough 

oxygen in the winter to support aquatic life. How can this 

3 
be corrected? 

Goose, Stillwater and Mill Ponds are said to have coliforw 
bacteria exceeding limits during the winter menths--much from 
septic tanks o Could a program requiring all hemeown*rs to 
have their cesspools or stff tie tanks maintained and pumped 
on a regular basis every three years solve this problem? 

Run-off from street is said to be a greater polluting 
factor (page 3H4.3) than ra.w 3e**,ge, that toxic and carcino- 
genic materials are found in the run-off. °©uld not an 
areawide program limiting the use of salt in removing snow be 5 
instituted? 

If garbage disposal units (page I4. - 1 J increase organic loading 
of the w&i-^r, oauld there not be a limit — or perhaps outright c 
prevention -*-ef the use of such units? 

Could there be an area requirement that all homes install 
water conservation devices to cut down on uso of water in 7 
flushing toilets or other uses? 

The report states that there are several problem ar*as in 
Chatham that must be corrected with preventive measures im- 
mediately. There is always opposition to spending money for 
prevention, "hat is needed is a broad educational pr ogram 
to inform the public of the need for conserving and p? otecting 
our water. Too few people attend public hearings, fnere must 
be some other way to reach them. 

Sincerely, 
\ 

A Juliet ii . Bernstein 



,! 20b" Kearin* 



The £.1.3. should be considered op the town of 
Barnstable as a new textbook on proper land use, and as 
a tool for good planning* The Planning board, the Sewer 
Commission, the Board of Health, and the Conservation 
(h'^iiGsio^ should accept, study, and refer to this document 
time and time again. Tne Environmental Impact Statement 






considered a bible' . 



1. 



I have picked out two basic thoughts en the Draft Plans 

tf ^ /$ 

cata shoula oe 

1 
j the ^ . J . D • A , 3o i 1 s 



The references in the cook: on 



le: 



the data in the boo* 



r"| -»' 



and their Interpretations for various j^a..s uses', and 
'Guidelines for' Soil and Water Conservation in an 
Urbanizing Area of Mass.' , by the U.3.D.A., S oil 
Conservation Service. In other words, information ...o 

to the soil restrictions of eacn type of soil on tne 
Cape, ( Carver, Belgrade, Gloucester, elc. snould oe 
in the text of ';he £.1.3. and its appendix. 
2. Marine sanitation devices must be placed ^^jd:. soars 
on tne Cape which have living quarters and heads. 



-p 



See i 3 L 9^-500, Title II, Section 312. Part or waras- 
pin Creek in Barnstable is polluted by lac^. of sucn 



c evices. 



r^> 



( , 



, , ^ ,; 




zW/^ 




OFFICE OF 

SELECTMEN - ASSESSORS 
BOARD OF HEALTH 

ORLEANS, MASSACHUSETTS 



Re: 208 Plan 



HERBERT F. WILCOX 

R££8B9Y8XJH£HXK2BK 

GASTON L. NORGEOT 



May 23, 1978 

Cape Cod Planning & Economic Development Commission 

Court House 

Barnstable, Massachusetts 02630 

Attention: Alfred S. DeMott 



Gentlemen: 

As Town Representative on the 208 APAC Committee, I personally would 
recommend approval of the 208 Plan as issued. We need to have an area-wide, 
united organization for our protection. In addition, if Federal and State 
Agencies are involved, a group representation can best cope with the labyrinth 
of bureaucracy. 

This is not the time to consider further amendment and change the plans. 
This generally well-written and well laid-out document could serve as very 
satisfactory guidelines for the immediate future requirements. 

As far as Orleans is concerned, the problem of initiating a meaningful 
and continuing program of on-site disposal up-date and maintenance is absolutely 
necessary. Equally important is starting toward a septage treatment system - 
preferably sub-regional. If we wait until the Federal and State Agencies complete 
their ponderous and wasteful time and money consuming studies, the cost of 
installation will be beyond anyone's means. 

Very truly yours, 






[fai*s*c( 



William E. Holland, 208 Representative 



weh:ee 




OFFICE OF 

SELECTMEN - ASSESSORS 
BOARD OF HEALTH 

ORLEANS, MASSACHUSETTS 



June 27, 1978 

Cape Cod Planning & Economic Development Commission 
208 Quality Management Plan 
1st District Court House 
Barnstable, Massachusetts 02630 

Attention: Sylvia Daniels 

Dear Ms. Daniels: 



HERBERT F. WILCOX 

Ptesssaa&omsassDaaL 

GASTON L. NORGEOT 

Thomas B. Nicker son 



The following comments are presented from the Orleans Committee 
relative to input to the 208 draft. Some of the comments were covered in 
the Lower Cape Meeting and are simply re-emphasized. 

1. Elimination of use of salt in road sanding. 

2. Recommend 208 staff collect information on the maintenance 
of on-site disposal systems and particularly in the use of 
additives (value vs hazards). 



z 



3» To study the acceptability and feasibility of small localized •? 
waste treatment systems. 

*f. To study the feasibility of financial relief to individuals . 
for up-dating defunct on-site systems - i.e. tax abatements, 
etc. 



5. Financial and technical assistance in monitoring areas 
around town dumps. 

6. Assist in control of storm runoffs to fresh and salt 
protected water. 

For the Committee 

-• . ■ • ■ > 

' ■ c 



5 



William E. Holland 



weh:ee 



P. 0. Box 928 
Brewster, Pass. 02631 
June 1, 1978 



Roberts E. Robes 

Executive Director 

Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission 

1st District Court House 

Barnstable, Mass., 02681 

Dear l v !r. Robes: 

This is in response to your invitation at the public 
hearing in Orleans, May 30 , 1978, for written comments o 
the Water Quality Management Plan / EIS for Cape Cod : 



n 



I read the whole document for the first time before the 
meeting and, in my judgment, it is an excellent, well-worked, 
out plan. (I have some personal experience with development 
problems: Prior to coming to the Cape, I was with the World 
Bank for 27 years — as economist, Director of the Economics 
Department, and Director of the Economic Development Institute.) 
Water is probably the most crucial natural resource constraint 
on Cape Cod. Jf the Plan recommendations are carried out 
Cape Cod should be able to develop and at the same time main- 
tain the quality of environment that attracted, most of us here. 

I have the following suggestions for your consideration 
in the re-draft of the Plan: 

1. There should be more emphasis on encouraging water 
conservation through a proper structure of water use charges. 
(I found only one sentence in the whole report on this.) 
The amount of water a household uses determines the amount of 
waste water to be disposed of. There is a great deal of 
flexibility in the use of water and people respond to money 1 
incentives. The structure of water rates inmost towns on the 
Cape is such that the price per unit goes down with increasing 
use. Proper conservation user charges would, on the contrary, 
provide for rates to go up with usage to encourage careful 
use of water and to discourage wasteful use. 

As we heard, Orleans is seriously considering moving to 
conservation user charge pricing. Yarmouth, which already has 
such a structure for most of its water consumption, is consider- 
ing applying it across the board, I have been informed by their 
Water Department. A recommendation in thfi Plan for a conservation 
user charge structure would be very helpful. 

8 



?) 



9. tvi^ th^u^t of the recommendai ions for the adoption 
of the Preventive Alternative in waste water management for* 
most of the Cape is certainly righto However, to help 
convince homeowners of this, they should receive some help 
in making the necessary investments, e.PT. in replacing; a cess- 
pool by a septic tank or adding a second leach facility. 
Since a substantial part of the benefits from this accrue 
to the community, there is a case for the community helping 
the individual either through subsidizing a part of the cost 
directly through a grant or indirectly through a low-interest 
long-term loan. It migrht be worth considering whether such 
a project for federal funding help could be prepared, 

3 « A minor point: there should be a statement how 
"summer resident" is defined in the statistics, (I found a 
footnote in one table only in this regard.) The peak number 
of summer residents present during the summer is useful to 
know. But to get an idea of the waste-water problem, perhaps 
you need, something like the school system's "full-time 
studnet equivalent", 10 summer visitors each staying one week 
equal 1 "full-time summer resident equivalent" or l^O day- 
trippers equal 1 "full-time summer resident equivalent"? 



Sincerely yours, 



Q 




Andrew M. Kamarck 



July 13, 1978 



^V 



V* 



208 Planning Staff 

Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission 

Barnstable, Massachusetts 02630 

Re: Draft rfater s^uality 

Management Plan/EIS for 
Cape Cod 
Ladies and Gentlemen: 

I have read the draft plan with great interest. Being a practicing 
hydrogeologist I have paid particular attention to the areas related to ground 
water and geology, and will primarily comment on those aspects. I shall 
comment mostly on matters of content as I understand this to be a draft, and I 
presume it will undergo the thorough editing and revision it obviously needs. 
I found Chapter 2, especially the section on ground water, particularly dis- 
tressing for its lack of clarity and accuracy in expressing the concepts that 
are so basic to understanding the whole water resources situation on Cape Cod. 
The problems with this chapter are so general it is not feasible to make 
specific comments on most of them in this letter. 

My SDecific criticisms by chapter, page, and paragraph follow: 

Chapter Page Paragraph Comment 

2 12 The Cape only extends about 40 miles seaward 

from the mainland, certainly not 90. The 
whole peninsula is not 80 miles long. 

2 17 The outwash plain extends to sea level at the 

south shore, and below sea level in Nantucket 
Sound. 

2 4 1 Kettle hole is more than sufficient. Adding 

depression is redundant. 

2 4 1 The correct term is water table. Omit ground. 

2 7 2 It should be stated that the use of ponds for 

water supply is for practical purposes the 
same as using ground water. As you have said 
elsewhere most of the ponds exist because the 
depressions they are in intersect the water 
table. 

3 1 4 Nitrate is a toxic what? 



10 



Chapter Page Paragraph 

3 17 

3 13 1 

3 17 3 



3 
3 



20 



20 



53 Table 3.13 



27 



27 



27-29 



Appendix F 



Comment 

I think agricultural fertilizers should not 
be ignored as a source of nitrate and phos- 
phorous in ground water or surface water. 

fhe third sentence makes no sense, 

Nitrate Results. It is not correct to say 
"nitrate NO3 - N". Either use the chemical 
symbols only, or write "nitrate nitrogen". 

Nitrate from sewage is also likely to be 
associated with some increase in chloride. 

The nitrate loading calculation also suffers 
from the fact that during much of the growing 
season evapotranspiration exceeds recharge. 
(Actually the plants intercept the infiltrating 
precipitation before it can become recharge.) 
Therefore, there is virtually no dilution 
during a significant part of the year. Also, 
recharge is irregular while sewage flow is 
fairly constant. However, I do not know a 
better method of approximating nitrate loading, 
and I am not suggesting abandonment of such 
calculations. 

Are some decimals not missing? Should some 
decimals present not be commas? 

In Chapter 2, p. 2-5, you say 16" of recharge. 

I question the validity of this calculation. 
The area from which a well draws water is 
related to the characteristics of the aquifer 
and to the flow of water in the aquifer, not 
merely to precipitation around the well. 

There is a problem with your definition of 
recharge area. You really seem to be talking 
about a well's area of influence. Recharge 
area refers to the whole aquifer, not just to 
one well. This is nicely stated in Appendix 
F, which you should follow in rewriting this. 

The definition of tfater Supply Protection 
Areas is based on dubious assumptions. This 
may seem the most practical approach, but I 
think it will lead to a false sense of 
security by those who follow it without a 
full understanding of it. 



1 



n 

L. 



11 



Chapter Page Paragraph Comment 

Appendix G Some of these definitions are very bad. 

Following are some better definitions and 
other suggestions for improvement: 

Aquifer - a geologic formation that yields 
water to wells in sufficient quantity 
to be significant in water supply. 

Fresh 

Fresh/salt water interface - the boundary 
between salt water and fresh water. 

It is not merely a hypothetical boundary, it 

really is one, whether sharp or diffuse. 

Also, the boundary makes no assumptions about 

anything. People discussing the interface 

make assumptions. 

Hydraulic refers to water in general, not 
just to ground water. 

Kettle - a depression in glacial deposits, 

such as outwash sand and gravel, created 
by the melting of a block of glacier ice 
that was wholly or partly buried in that 
deposit. 

Kettle Pond - a pond occurring in a kettle. 

Moraine - an accumulation of glacial deposits 
having a constructional topographic 
expression independent of the surface 
underneath it, and having been built by 
the direct action of glacier ice. 

Ground Moraine - moraine having low relief 
without transverse linear features, and 
generally denoting accumulation beneath 
the glacier. 

End Moraine - a ridgelike moraine built along 
the margin of a glacier. 

Recharge Area - area contributing infiltration 

of rainfall to ground water, 
tfhy limit it to wells? 

I never heard it applied to surface water 
supply where the more or less equivalent con- 
cept is a water shed. 

In your definition of zone of aeration it would 
be better to say "soil and rock" rather than 
"sand" . 



12 



Chapter Page Paragraph Comment 

Appendix G Definitions of mutagenic and teratogenic 

(used in Table 3.12) would be appropriate. 

I think that this is a very good effort at making the public, and the 
public servants in particular, aware of the problems confronting Cape Cod — 
the reasons for the problems and why they need solutions soon. It provides 
sufficient alternative actions that there is no excuse for the towns not to 
get moving in some direction. Although it is not perfect and may be rejected 
by some people, I think this is a very positive effort at getting some order 
and sense (even inter-town cooperation?) into protecting our water supply, 
handling our wastes, and controlling our growth, Jty main fear is that much 
effectiveness and credibility of this document will be lost if it does not 
receive the thorough editing and revision that it needs to make it a clear 
and understandable tool. 



Thank you for this opportunity to comment. 



Sincerely, 





ohn A. Moser 

115 Hallet Street 
Yarmouth Port 



13 



JUL 2 7 1978 



July 19, 1978 

Board of Selectmen 
Town of Barnstable 
Hyannis, Ka. 02 GDI 

Dear Board Members: 

It has been my pleasure to represent the Town of Barnstable on the 208 Waste 
Water Management Plan Advisory Committee. I can only hope that the communities 
of Barnstable County will take advantage of the information provided in the 
plan and take action on the majority of its recommendations. 

Formulating the 2uo plan for Barnstable County has been an interesting process, 
every step of the information gathering, engineering review, and items for 
plan inclusion, has been overseen by the general public as well as the 208 
staff members. 

Public participation in the plan, as described above, has resulted in a plan 
which I believe addresses the waste water management and water supply probleias 
on Cape Cod in a realistic and objective manner. 

Various segments of the Cape Cod community have been upset from time to time 
as the plan has evolved. Those groups were generally, from each end of the 
spectrum, i.e. environmentalists and developers, and if one has any faith in 
our democratic system of compromise, I suppose you would have to say, as a 
result, it is a good plan. 

The program's title of Waste Water Management is sometimes misleading in that 
the Cape's severe sewage handling problems are limited to a few densely populated 
village centers and harbor areas. The more appropriate title Is that used on 
the draft plan's cover, that of a Water Quality Management Plan. 

The draft plan's title is much broader in scope, as well it should be, for the 
effects of waste water on Cape Cod are somewhat elusive. Their long term effects 
on the Cape's environmental and economic future can be crippling, if proper 
measures are not taken in the very near future. 

Strong leadership in each community will be required to achieve the balance 
necessary to assure environmental stability, and sound economic growth for our 
County. 

Barnstable's unusual circumstance of having four separate wwter departments all 
outside the Town government, as well as a lack of a central authority within the 
municipal government, makes this communities' job harder than most. The need for 
persuasive leadership on the part of the Board of Selectment is going to be of 
prime importance if our towns healthy future Is to be assured. 

14 



Barnstable Fire District 
Tor Board of Selectmen 

-2- 

The recent charter change placing several important departments under one 
leadership, that of the D.P.W., should make the accomplishment of needed 
changes and improvements a simpler task. 

If there is one negative comment I would make in the draft plan in your 
possession is that it does not no far enough. There is mich nore work to he 
accomplished, nore specific iiifcmation should be obtained for the. Town of 
Barnstable. It wasn't possible to accomplisn this with the limited funds available. 
The County program has provided a common base for all the communities to work 
from, and it is tueir responsibility to finish the job which the 208 nrotram 
has begun. 

The following items would seem to deserve immediate attention. 

The County Health Department has done an admirable job, alonp with the Town 
sanitarians and health agents in handling problems at specific sites. They do 
not, however, have the time, personnel or expertise to establish and maintain an 
effective ground water monitoring programs. All of the towns should support 
the establishment of personnel, at the County level, to perform that function, 
as described in the draft plan. 

One of the main objectives all towns should be aiming for is the identification 
of potential and current major pollutant sources. For example, dumps, landfills 
and sewerage treatment facilities should have their effluent plumes C.efir-.e^. 
and monitored on a continuous basis. 

Barnstable should follow "alT-outh's ,ood example ar,l £3tablis s Putlic Water 
Supply "Protection areas where appropriate. T^ere is a nod^l of such by-law at 
the end of the 20o Draft F.I.?. 

The need for additional personnel for monitorin residential septic irystem 
maintenance is essential. This could probably v >e doee most efficiently at the 
County level where one person could handle several towns. 

By nature I do not like to see the expansion of rovernnent, and the establish- 
ment of new governmental branches or layers. The r>robler of maintaining an 
adequate and relatively clean water supply on the Cape is of 9uch ma lor 
proportions, hoever, that I believe a new aj'ency should be established, solely, 
for that purpose. 

A Barnstable bounty Water Supply Authority should be established. Its function 
would be to register and control every public water supply facility, as r^'ards 
withdrawal rate, length of pumping days per well, etc. T.ie monitoring of 
potential pollutants from developments, highways, and business would be their 
responsibility. 

Those wells of significant capacity, say over 50,00? 1*P.D., In addition to 
public water supjbly wells, should be permitted by the authority and their 



15 



Barnstable Fire District 
To: Board of Selectmen 

-3- 

pumping rates controlled by the Authority. 

Should the Board care to discuss these matters at length some time, I am at 
your disposal. 

Very truly yours, 



Thomas J. Mullen, Supt. of Water Dept. 

208 Waste Water Management Advisory Committee Representative 



TJM:pb . 



cc: /C.C.P.E.D.C. 208 staff 

U.S.E.P.A. Environmental & Ecological Information Office 



16 



COMMENTS FROM : Harry Schroeder * 

I recommend that we add a new sub-section to Chapter 6. Specifically to 
the section titled "Management Program" beginning on page 6-16. The new 
sub-section would be added to page 6-21. 

This new sub-section would deal with the general subject of 
CONSERVATION and CONTROL of WATER RESOURCES. 

In the sixth and seventh paragraphs on page 2-5 it is noted that 
approximately half of the rainfall is returned to the atmosphere through 
evaporation and through trees and plants. Also that 3/4 of the rainfall 
on ponds is lost through evaporation. Everyone has seen the power of 
evaporation- -remember that big puddle in the low spot of the street you 
live near--and how the sun dried it up before night? 

Obviously there is nothing we can--or should--do about the evaporation 
through trees, plants and ponds. But we can refrain from adding to it. 
And it will save money for everybody. 

For example--golf courses (and people) water their grass during the day. 
Obviously the sun will evaporate a lot of the spray. All grass watering 
should be limited to the hours after sun-set and before sun-rise. This 
should apply to private wells as well as public. 

Swimming pool evaporation is just as severe as the street puddle. There 
are probably many other areas of this kind. We should (have*) ways to 
minimize this problem. 

Another area in which water can be salvaged is through re-cycling before 
it becomes septage, one example of this would be the re-cycling of water 
used by car washers and water entertainment areas like water slides and 
such. 

It shouldn't be too difficult to measure the problem. For example, we 
could attach a questionnaire to the quarterly water bill (like we 
inventory boats by a questionnaire that goes with the tax bill) and 
determine the location and size of each swimming pool and the amount 
of water used per year in each pool and by the group as a whole. 

We should review the rates charged for water to be sure we aren't 
encouraging the unnecessary use of water like gasoline prices, water 
prices will tend to encourage conservation and careful usage. 

There must be many things we could do to conserve water and to 
control the unnecessary use of water. 

The conservation of our water is everybody's most important business. 
*Typed from original handwritten comments. 



17 



Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod 



P. O. Box 636 
Orleans, Massachusetts 02653 



617 755-4142 



BOARD OF DIRECTORS 

PRESIDENT 
Charles E. Oglesby 

siCt PRESIDENT 

A C Jones 

SECRETARY 

Katharine Whittum 

TREASURER 

_ Joseph C. Lowell 

Judith Barnet 
Brenda Boleyn 
Gayle B.Charles 
Karen Dumont 
Barbara Fegan 
Paul B. Hamilton 
William E. Holland 
Barbara Mayo 
James E. Nickerson 
Donald A. Sander 
Donald Schall 
Erv>inH Steif 
Joyce Thompson 
Herbert E. Whitlock 
Donald J Zinn 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

Esther A. Snyder 

BOARD OF SCIENTIFIC 
ADVISORS 

Dr Herbert h Whitlotk 
Chemist. Chairman 

Dr Morton S. Biskind 
lexicologist 

Dr D W.Caldwell 

Geologist H\drologist 

Dr Graham S. Gicse 

Physical Occanographer 

Dr, Francis R. Hall 
Hydrologist 

Dr William B Kerfoot 

Biologisi 

'on H. Nickcr:>on 
Biologist 

Dr Peter H.Rieh 

Limnologisl 

Dr Michael Soukup 
Limnologisl 

Dr /.ant Spiegel 
Hydrologist 

Dr Arthur NStrahler 
Geologist 

Or John M. Teal 
Marine Ecologist 



July 14, 1978 



JUL^ 



M& 



Ms. Paula L. Magnuson 

Cape Cod Planning and Economic 

Development Commission 
Barnstable, Ma. 02630 

Dear Ms. Magnuson: 

APCC would like to congratulate you 
especially and the rest of the CCP&EDC staff 
on the over-all recommendations of the 208 
Program. I f m sure it required a monumental 
effort to put together such a vast amount of 
information. 

Please find attached a few comments, the 
subject matter of which APCC would like to see 
incorporated in the final Plan. It is our 
opinion that these remarks clarify the material 
and generally strengthen your recommendations. 

If you have any questions relating to this 
material, please get in touch with me. 

Best personal regards, 




Esther A. Snyder 
Executive Director 



EAS:ep 
End .,/ 



© 



18 



100% Recycled 
Paper 



A non-profit organization - all dues and contributions tax deductible. 



COMMENTS ON WELL RECHARGE AREA 

When the results of computations based on scientific knowledge 
and speculation are given in a report, we think that the assumptions i 
used should be made explicit. In addition, the implications of the 
results should also be clarified. We believe that the above comments 
apply to the Map 5.5. Here we find certain areas specified as needed 
to supply the assumed summer population of 1995. It is further stated 
in the text on pages 5-53 that the quantity of water needed is 100 
gallons per capita per day. Further information is given on page A-44 
^Appendix F). However, the basic theory and the assumptions made in 
order to apply it to the local conditions of Cape Cod are not given. 

We think the following information would make the situation 
clearer to a decision-maker. First of all, the area from which water 
is drawn into a well is that area whose recharge rate is equal to 
the pumping rate or to the storage discharge rate . Storage is defined 
as the amount of water that can be released when the water table drops. 
Further, that all the recharge in the required area goes to the well 
and nowhere else . 

For the total system to reach equilibrium after pumping is 
initiated may take tens or hundreds of years but will eventually 
show up as a general lowering of the water table as referred to sea 
level. The sea level has been slowly rising over the last few 
centuries, and since our fresh water supply is floating on sea water, 
therefore the water table has been rising with reference to the land 
surface. 

Now in order to figure the area from which a given well actually 
draws water, we have to make at least two vital assumptions. One: 
the amount of recharge per square mile. If we use the natural re- 
charge of 16" - 15" per year, we have implicitly ruled out man-made 
recharge from septic systems. Two: we further assume that the 16" 
of natural recharge are evenly spread throughout the year. 

This latter assumption is far from the truth, as shown by the 
figures for Hyannis and Provincetown (see Table F1 in "The Environ- 
mental Impact of Ground Water Use on Cape Cod" by Arthur N. Strahler) 
where we see that there is little or no recharge during the months 
of May, June, July and August. Unless we figure in storage, we 
would have an infinitely large area of withdrawal, especially since 
these are the months of maximum usage. Storage could be eliminated 
if equilibrium conditions corresponding to year long steady pumping 
were actually the case. However, the seasonal nature of the Cape's 
water requirements makes exact figuring difficult. 

We must also take into account that everything that leaches 
into the area of needed recharge goes into the well. For example, 
this is important when spray pesticide programs are undertaken. It 
is becoming ever more evident that the breakdown products and con- 
taminants of pesticides are possibly more dangerous than the 



19 



pesticides themselves. It should be obvious that no herbicides 

such as 2.4. 5T should be used along power lines that cross the 

wellfield withdrawal area, since the dioxane present as a by-product 
is one of the most potent carcinogens. 

Diazinon is an organophosphorous pesticide available commercially 
for home and garden use and has been mentioned for tick control on 
the Cape. A toxic impurity, Salfotep, has been identified as pre- 
sent in Diazinon and is 30 to 120 times more toxic to mammals than 
Diazinon and is considerably more stable. These are only two of 
the more obvious problem products. 

It should be emphasized that the present 400 sq. ft. radius of 
protected area around a well as mandated by the Commonwealth is 
based on the assumption that this will allow bacteria to break down 
all pathogenic organisms and fecal matter. However, if we allow 
home septic systems within the well withdrawal area, and these same 
homes are provided with town well water, then we face the possibility 
of constantly increasing the concentration of some impurities within 
the cell of water created by the well withdrawal, and out of which 
no water flows except to the well. It is perhaps the problems 
connected with this cell of water, which is essentially isolated 
from the rest of the Cape's hydrologic system, that are most 
difficult to convey without a detailed diagram of water flow lines. 
This diagram can be obtained from U.S.G.S. and should be included. 

We believe some discussion along the lines suggested above is 
in order. 



Assoc, for the Preservation 

of Cape Cod 
July 14, 1978 



20 



LINE BY LINE COMMENTS 

1. Page S-3; S-14 - Monitoring by Barnstable County Health 
Department will require up-graded budget and staff to meet the 
scientifically necessary testing programs. The first paragraph 
on page 3-2 under "Organic Compounds in Drinking Water" serves 
as an important warning of the need for continued vigilance in 
monitoring water quality of Cape Cod. 

2. S-4; S-6 - Reference septage disposal, both statements 
should point out that all methods should be temporary solutions 
with the exception of a safe chemical treatment. 

3. Page 3-22 - Implications of the nitrate loadings per 40,000 
square feet in terms of population density should be made 
explicit. 

4. Page 3-43 - a report of a study by Slimak and Harris (1977) 
is referred to and a tabulation of their results is given in 
tables 3.11 arid 3.12. Since part of their study was done on 
effluent from the sewage treatment plant at Otis Air Force Base, 
we believe that it is important that it be stated in the body 

of the 208 Report that the phthalates mentioned were plasticizers 
introduced by the plastic tubing used in sampling: "The use of 
plastic tubing could not be avoided during the sampling of the 
ground water percolate at Woods Hole, and explains the appear- 
ance of these compounds." (Study by Slimak and Harris) 

It should be made emphatically clear that these potentially 
carcenogenic compounds are not present in the water as delivered 
to the groundwater by spray irrigation. 

5. Page 3-50 - Reference to table 3.13 does not seem appropriate. 

6. Page 3-53, table 3.13 - Impossible values given to Ph. Are 
column headings correct? 

7. Page 3-54 - Dennis landfill, table 3.14 - The total nitrogen 
figure as obtained by summing the analyses of NO3 and NH4 would 
be more appropriate as an indicator of dangerous pollution than 
either figure alone, since NH4 can easily convert back to NO3. 
Even if some of the NH4 remains as such, it is still highly 
corrosive of copper piping as normally used in modern houses. 
Heading of column might be N/(N03 + NH4), and still have 10 ppm 
as the danger point. The N.A. given under NH4 is not really to 
the point. 



Assoc, for the Preservation 

of Cape Cod 
July 14, 1978 



21 



AUG 1 4 1978 

'W&P& Environmental 
.^«Fa^ Defense 

Fund 4? 5 PARK AVENUE SOUTH, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10016/212 686-4191 

August 11, 1978 

COMMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND ON THE 
LAND USE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR WATER RESOURCE 
PROTECTION IN THE WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN 
FOR THE CAPE COD 2 08 PLANNING AREA 

The Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. (EDF) is a nationwide 
non-profit organization of over 45,000 members and an active staff 
of scientists, lawyers, and economists dedicated to the wise and 
efficient utilization and protection of natural resources. EDF 
has been particularly concerned with the protection of surface and 
groundwater supplies and is enthusiastic about the potential role 
of the 208 planning process in prevention of water supply degradation. 
We have been a member of the Cape Cod 2 08 plan Technical Advisory 
Committee and are vitally interested in the long-term proper manage- 
ment of Cape Cod water resources. Much of our concern is based on 
experience which we have had in observing the deterioration of similar 
water resource systems in Nassau and Suffolk Counties and judicial 
and administrative efforts to improve management of those resources. 
These comments on the Cape Cod 2 08 plan are limited to consideration 
of the suggested land use controls for protection of water supply. 

The core concept of the Cape Cod 208 plan, like the Long 
Island 208 plan, should be watershed management. Maintenance of an 
adequate supply of high quality groundwater for Cape Cod's water 
supply depends upon proper management of and controls over existing 
and potential point and non-point source pollution activities in 

22 

OFFICES IN: NEW YORK CITY (NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS); WASHINGTON, DC; BERKELEY. CALIF., DENVER, COL 



recharge areas on the Cape deemed critical to the protection of 
groundwater quality. An outline of a watershed management program 
for Cape Cod presented by me to the Technical and Citizens Advisory 
Committees dated August 20, 197 6 is attached to these comments. 
The Cape Cod 2 08 plan notes that the Cape Cod area is 
likely to be subject to great growth and development pressures in 
the near future. We feel that sound controls over degradation of 
water supply should be put into place before the expected development 
overwhelms existing controls and induces degradation of water supply. 
Therefore, we applaud those aspects of the suggested land use manage- 
ment program which seek to prevent degradation, in particular the 
prohibition of landfills, sewage treatment effluent disposal and the 
other enumerated uses which may generate potential contaminants in 
areas critical to water supply. The provisions suggesting restrictions 
on impermeable surfaces to reduce runoff and retention of natural 
vegetation also exhibit due consideration of water quality concerns. 
We appreciate that the 2 08 plan as a whole gives sound and reasoned 
consideration to a wide range of alternative land use controls to 
prevent degradation of the existing high quality of Cape Cod's water 
supply. 

The 208 plan also proposes the use of zoning to prevent over- 
loading of a critical area's ability to handle sewage treatment 
effluent. The recommended controls would allow for zoning of 40,000 
square feet minimum lot size, and suggest 60,000 or 80,000 square 



23 



feet minimum lots in areas of existing higher density. The 4 0,000 
square foot recommendation, the equivalent of 1 acre zoning, will 
be barely the minimum amount necessary to absorb the expected nitrogen 
load per household using the 208' s own calculations. We feel that 
additional consideration might be given to an even higher zoning 
minimum, such as 2 acres. The Cape Cod 208 area has the unique 
opportunity to prevent degradation of the present high water quality, 
yet is here recommending the smallest lot zoning needed to inhibit 
degradation. We feel that a greater margin of error should be 
allowed for, particularly in light of the potential cumulative impacts 
of many of these 1 acre sites. The plan does recognize this to a 
limited extent by suggesting that areas of existing high density be 
zoned to a larger minimum lot standard. This principle should apply 
equally to areas of future development and an initial large minimum 
lot size may result in later preventive virtues. 

Finally, in recognition of the administrative difficulties 
of identifying and controlling sources of point and non-point sources 
of toxic pollutants in particular, we think it altogether appropriate 
that the Cape Cod 208 plan adopt non-degradation standards for high 
quality ground waters which constitute any long term source of water 
supply for the Cape. In effect, the Nassau/Suffolk Regional Planning 
Board 208 Plan has adopted such a standard for high quality ground- 
waters in critical recharge areas for Suffolk County's deeper aquifer 
in Suffolk County. Because the management problems are similar, we 
attach as an exhibit to our comments Section 6 of the final draft of 

24 



of the Long Island 208 Plan. (The Plan is now at the printers.) 

Specific recommendations appear on page 6-10, Table 6-1 and 6-24 

and 25. For Zone III, the critical recharge area in the central 

portion of eastern Suffolk County, the Nassau-Suffolk 208 study 

recommends that: 

"Land use control should be the primary method 
for protecting this valuable groundwater 
resource. Where residential development is 
allowed, require large lot development (two 
acre zoning or greater) , encourage the existing 
large land holdings." 

This recommendation is equally applicable to comparable portions of 

Cape Cod. In our view, existing state and federal case law amply 

authorize use of such land use controls, including reduced zoning 

densities (two acre lot size or less) to protect environmental 

amenities, including the quality of water supplies. See, in particular, 

Moviematjc Industries v. Water Commissioners of Dade County (Florida 

District Court of Appeal 1977) ; Bridgeport Hydrologic Company v. 

State of Connecticut Council on Water Company Lands (11 ERC 154 5, 

D. Conn. 1977) and Matter of Nattin Realty (3 ERC 1121, N.Y. Supreme 

Ct. 1971). 

We would again like to congratulate the Cape Cod 2 08 group 

for the sensitivity to water quality issues exhibited in the plan. 

We look forward to the successful implementation of the suggested 



25 



controls and the preservation of Cape Cod's invaluable water 
resources. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be 



of any further assistance. 




Respectfully submitted, 



r 

James T. B. Tripp 
Counsel 



7T/b '/^M-fr 






Andrew S. Hogeland 
Legal Intern 



Enclosures 



26 



JUL 1 o »7i . 

Virginia Valiela 

Box 237, North Falmouth 
Massachusetts, 02556 U.S.A. 

July . c , 1978 
Dear Paula, 

I have a few questions that didn't pet covered v/hen you came, and 
that don't seem appropriate to sut in the Committee's report. 

1. Have you cone across suggestions about what we ^o with the plume 
from the landfill/septage pit/high school, etc. once we find it 
and find that its trajectory will endanger something? The high 
school irrigates its playing fields. I seriously wonder if we i 
couldn't spray its plume on the fields instead. 

2. Page 3-22 speaks of 6.9 lbs of N as T ; T itrate per person per year. 
Page 3--+9 speaks of l^,h gms/day of rn otal Nitrogen— which con- 
verts to 12 lbs of N per person n.er year. Those 2 figures n 
may be consistent. T don't know. 

3. Would you harroen to have: 

a. SPA, 1976, "Quality Criteria for hater" 

b. the article by Kiramel .-"• Eraids ( l°7 L f- ) re Long Is. landfills 

k, Re page 1 -+-^2 and the discussion of composting septage and the 
lack of sufficient solid waste or sawdust (U-33). I wonder if 

the Seo-?uel from trie N. Bridgewater "resource recovery" plant 
might°tm appropriate source of carbon, and absorbant at the 
same time. I don't know that the 3co-Fuel is beinp Droduced at 
present, and T don't know its cost: tho I had heard they had had 
difficulty finding markets for it. 

Thanks for coming 2 weeks ago. "we're having our final meeting this 
coming Wednesday. 

Sincerely, 



27 




Town of Barnstable 



office of 



Board of Health 

397 MAIN STREET 
HYANNIS, MASS. 02601 



JV L 19)878 



July 



7, 1978 



Ms. Sylvia Daniels 

Cape Cod Planning & Economic Development Comm. 

First District Court House 



Barnstable, Massachusetts 



Dear Ms. Daniels: 



Enclosed are comments concerning the Water Quality Manage- 
ment Plan/EIS for Cape Cod from the Barnstable Board of 
Health. Copies have been sent to the Town of Barnstable 
Review Committee. 

Overall , I feel the plan contains useful, pertinent data 
and is a credit to your organization. 



I would be happy to discuss any of our comments with you 
if you wish. 

Sincerely, 

hn M. Kelly/ 
irector of Public Health 




JMK/mm 
encl. 1 



28 



Town of Barnstable 




office of 



.•\IAHI3UBL! 
UkM*. 
1659. 



Board of Health 

397 MAIN STREET 
HYANNIS, MASS. 02601 



June 21. 1978 



Board of Health's Comments on 
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN 



The WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN/EIS FOR CAPE COD is a handsome, 
massive document accumulated over a three-year period at considerable 
expense to the Federal government. 

It would be difficult to criticize the concept or goals of the 
plan which are to protect the water quality and water resources on 
Cape Cod. However, the Board of Health feels the plan is idealistic 
and, if implemented as presented, extremely costly. 

m 

The plan recommends a five-point management system fc>r on-site sewae 
systems administered by the Board of Health as follows: 

1. Hire a professional health agent . (Barnstable complies with 
this recommendation; however, three additional personnel and 
one additional clerk would be required to initiate a serious 
attempt to comply with all of the provisions contained in the 
plan. ) 

2. Adopting special regulations for sub-surface disposal. (Boards 
of Health already have this authority under Chapter 111-31, 
Massachusetts General Laws. Most towns have adopted regulation 
more stringent than Title 5, of the State Environmental Code. 
If local regulations are challenged, it has been almost im- 
possible to obtain expert testimony in court at no cost from 
the very agencies that recommend these regulations be adopted. 

3. Initiating a regular maintenance program. (This is a wonder- 
ful recommendation, but difficult to enforce. What action can; 
we take against someone who won't have his septic tank pumped 
every two years who is causing no visible problem. It is 
interesting that the State of California who pioneered in the 
concept of towns taking over the management and maintenance of 
on-site sewage systems also is the state who recently revolted 
against property taxes with Proposition 13. ) 

4. Inventorying and upgrading sub-standard systems. (The Town of 
Barnstable, each time a building permit is issued, upgrades th 
sewage system within reason. If the system is in a potential 
problem area, it is upgraded to a septic tank and leaching 
facility. If not in a problem area, we allow conversion of a 
cesspool with sanitary tees to a septic tank concept and allow 



29 



Page 2 

• 

an overflow leaching pit. This is done at half the expense 
of the full conversion. You can also solve the problem of 
overflowing cesspools creating an immediate health hazard 5 
more easily by allowing an overflow at a cost of about $400 
rather than the $1000 for a tank and pit. We attended several 
208 meetings and know that many ardent supporters have not con- 
verted their own systems from cesspools to septic tanks. 

5. Educating the public on proper use and operation of a septic C 
tank. (The Town of Barnstable was instrumental in having the 
Old Colony 208 booklet printed in both the Register and the 
Cape Cod Realtors Monthly.) In addition, all new home owners 
receive a septic tank maintenance instruction sheet and a dia- 
gram showing the location of their system. Supplying handouts 
and educational material should be a function of CCPEDC. 

Communal septic systems are mentioned as a new concept in Massa- 7 
lusetts. Goldstein and Moberg report in their book, WASTE WATER 
LEATMENT SYSTEMS FOR RURAL COMMUNITIES (197.3), that in California 
fty-five per cent of community sub-surface systems failed and that 
fty-six per cent of the package treatment plants experienced equipment 
fficulties. Thirty-three per cent of these plants by-passed untreated 
swage for periods ranging from six hours to three hundred days. 

A question Barnstable should ask is - how does this plan effect 
ie Sewer Commission's comprehensive sewage plan 'for the Town of 8 
irnstable? 

Title 5, Sub-surface Disposal Regulations, State Environmental 
de, replaced Article XI in July, 1977. Persorvnel from 208 had no 
le in formulating this regulation although the 208 program had been 

existence for two years. When Title 5 went into effect certain g 
rnstable County selectmen vehemently opposed this regulation and de- 
nded an economic impact report from the State. The Cape Cod Times 
d an editorial requesting this report. To date, we have heard 
thing from these same selectmen concerning the economic impact of the 
'8 plan which will cost the towns at least ten times as much as 
tie 5. Again, we must consider California's Proposition 13. 

The 208 plan spells out what health departments are responsible for 
t is quite weak in its' recommendation that the State Water Pollution -.q 
ntrol should consider using its' authority to require pump-out -^ 
tcilities at marinas when they already have a law on the books requiring 
lis. (Law enclosed). 

There is no mention or recommendations for grease traps or re- 
iring restaurants to have grease barrels and use a rendering service 
equired in Barnstable), although grease will soon clog a leaching -Li 
icility. 



30 



Page 3 

Innovative systems sound great. However, many have a dubious track 
record. They could also promote building in areas that cannot be ser- 
viced by conventional systems. 

The Town of Barnstable was the first Cape town to construct a 
septage treatment facility. It would appear infeasible for Barnstable 
to construct another facility as mentioned in the plan. 

The Board of Health initiated a request to use Barnstable's septage 
facility on a regional basis last year and endorses this concept if 
feasible. 

Barnstable was also the second Cape town to receive State approval 
for its' landfill. We were very interested in participating in a water 
monitoring program at the landfill; however, at a meeting with the ex- 
perts, specific data and plans for implementation were not provided. 

The plan makes no mention of desalination by reverse osmosis. 
Enclosed is an article from the Well Water Journal showing Culligan's 
five gallon per day household system, that claims to remove most 
impurities from drinking water. This appears to be an innovative 
system that may be less costly than other methods. 

Bourne, Falmouth, Barnstable, Yarmouth, Dennis, Chatham and 
Brewster now have professional health agents. Provincetown had a certi-j 
fied health officer for many years. The County Health Department has 
three sanitarians, one with a master's degree in Public Health, one in 
the process of obtaining a master's. If the remaining Cape towns act 
on the recommendations of 208 and hire a sanitarian, it leaves the 
County sanitarians with little to do. 

It seems logical that the County Health Department would be in a 
position to direct the multi-208 program through its' existing staff 
with little additional help. The County laboratory is already in exis- 
tence and water testing is the Barnstable County Health Department's 
major supportive contribution to the taxpayer's of the Town of Barn- 
stable. 

The plan contains a considerable amount of useful data and infor- 
mation and represents a conscientious professional effort on the part 
of the 208 staff who should be commended. Nevertheless, the Barnstable 
Board of Health cannot, in good conscience, wholeheartedly endorse a 
plan that cannot be implemented as a realistic, cost effective program. 

TOWN OF BARNSTABLE BOARD OF HEALTH 



Robert L. Childs, Chairman 



Ann Jane Eshbaugh 



A. W. Mandelstam, M. D. 

31 




) 775-1 120 EX. 128 - 129 



l 






Ml >. 



1978 



TOWN OFFICES 397 MAIN STREET 

HYANNIS, MASS. 02601 



Juno 



*> i 



1370 



i-3. Paula Magnuson 
Cape Cod 203 fro jran 

1st District Court House 



200 Draft Plan and Economic 



Statemen 



-j ear 



ua rnuson: 



If a single suggestion were to be put forward which could help to 
insure that the proposals of the Jape Cod 203 Plan would he imple- 
mented and water quality protected, it would be that the Mass. D 
be required to rewrite Part I (inland Wetlands) o 
issued under Mass. G-.L, Oh. 131 sec. 4-0, 
to make those regulations into performance standard 



-cue 



'0 



»/ uj. o.it' Regulations 
Wetlands Protection Act 
s, as has recentl; 
done with Part II (Coastal Wetlands) of those Regulations. 

nservation Commissions already have responsibility to protect 



and quality, public and private drinking wate 



O ron:u wacei 

suenlies, and surface water qualit n 

the Wetlands Regulations which could control pollutants in 



esT" 



Guidelines 



could be provided 



througi 

road drainage, surface runoff, 

near wetlands and water oodles 



and other 



i J 



point and non-point discharges 



Although not widely recognized or practiced, a Conservation Commission 
has the power to require cleanup and/or redesign of existing pollution 



•o-- 



sources wuch as road runoff conducted to water bodies, if the Commission 
views such a problem as a violation of O.L. On. 131 sec. 40 which, in 
fact, it is if it is having an adverse effect on water quality or 
fisheries. There is no mention in the Wetlands Act of exemptions 
for uses existing prior to the Act. This has sometimes oeen interpreted 
to mean that, technically, there are no pre-existing non- conforming 
uses if a particular project is causing water quality degradation. 9 



DjS^ representatives have, on several occasions, suggested that they 
lack a data base from which to revise the Inland Wetland Regulations; 
CZM provided them with such a base for revising the Coastal Wetlands 
Regulations. The 200 programs, however, have provided sufficient 
data base. This should oe pointed out to hh^h, and 208 should insist 
on appropriate regulation revisions within a similar time frame to 
that allowed for the Coastal Wetland Regulations. 



Sincerely, 

Arlene Y/ilson 




cc: fancy Anderson, li.A.J.C. 32 
Thomas Mullen 






L.o-U:ia-.rman 



ETH:n«m JUL17 



1973 



July 14, 1978 



U. S. LInvironniental Protection Agency 
fcinvirorErsental and iiconoaic Impact Off ice 
John F. Kennedy federal Building, - ^oom 2203 
Boston, m 02203 

ATTN: Mr. Robert £. Mondoza 

RE: water Quality Management Plan/EIS for Cape Cod 

Gentlemen: 

Thfc Review Conmittee for the Town of Chatham heartily endorses the purposes, 
the principles and the recommendations of the Draft Plan, subject only to the 
comments in the following paragraphs and attachments to this letter. 

Chapters 4 & 5 

a hydrogeo logic/ land use study and report completed for the Town of Chatham in 
1977 provided extensive data on water quality, outlined a number of problem 
areas, assigning priorities for action, and recoigaended acquisition of water 
supply land, preparation of long range plans for sewer service and central wa- 
ter supply, and a number of amendments to zoning and subdivision regulations. 

A comment on the Wastewater Management Problem Areas indicated by map and text 
in the present Water Quality Draft Plan is included in Appendix A, accompanying 
this letter. 

Other comments herein include: 

-a recommendation as to an additional problem area 
-a question as to a designated problem area 
-remarks on on-site system management planning 
-statement on improved septage management in Chatham 
-comment on land use management 
-comment on application of the 201 planning process 

All of the above are included In Appendix A. 



33 



fotaftUft*, ^wbi s«sYto Sam 

While past thinking in Chatham has been to extend severing along Main Street 
from the Tcywn center westward approximately two railed, to George %der ;*oad, as 
indicated by Mp 4.2, page 4-65 of the Draft Plan, the present thinking is that 
sewering as far west as the Ctatl^st-Harvich town line (additional two miles) 
should be contained in the Flan as an available solution, not only for the needs 
of continuing business mid residential development on Main Street, but also for 
existsag problems in the Category 2 and 3 areas on the south side of Main Street. 

$br further presentation of this natter, reference is mode to the &8&»randu@ of 
the Chatham water Bollution Control Board, dated July 13, 1978, with nap, included 
i'lere as ^ippendix U. 

r^xaiaination of data for Jhathara (sewer system costs, land analysis, water puling, 
watershed land) indicated tiiat sooe ootaaents should he taade in the basis and use 
of such data. In a few instances, a typographical error introduces a problem as 
to siooning of the statement* All of tixe above commits are to be found in ^*pp@n- 
dis C. 



In furtherance of the recommendations oontained in the Draft Flan and also in the 
ifydrogeologico-Laad Use Keport of MstcaXf and l&fy Engineers for ths Town of Chat- 
ham (1977), Chatham has already taken a number of implementing steps, Indluding; 

1. Establishment of a ae^i-annual program of sailing and testing water 
fro© selected representative wells, for water quality oonitorin^* 

2. Collecting data to identify areas to have priority in remedial or pre-* 
ventlve action as to quality of ground water. 

3. studying ways of expanding central sower and water systems and of fi- 
nancing the related costs* 

4. Purchasing land for watershed "green belt", protecting private wells 
and potential central well sites* 

5* Reasoning some areas to reduce concentration of on-site wastes, to pro- 
tect ground water quality* 

Meafeers of the official boards of Chatham participating in the review of this 
Draft Flan have indicated that they intend to work cooperatively to implement 
the recociaendations as far as they are applicable and feasible for the Town of 
Chatham* This would include various aspects, such as: 

1* Public education as to septic system maintenance, rehabilitation and 
upgrading; water conservation. 

2* A continuing Cape Cod regional u rogr am of water sampling and testing, 
and compilation and use of areewlde water quality date for monitoring 
and management planning* 



34 



3. Improvement of procedure© and reporting by septa*© haulers as a 
means of inventorying and overseeing individual septic systeins 
throughout the Town. 

4. /unending of subdivision regulations in re<^urd to storm drainage and 
erosion control (without liir&t as to size of subdivision). 

5. Cooperation in regional studies, testing, planning and project develop- 
ment as may be instituted by the Cape Cod Planning and Sconwaic Jevel- 
opsaent Cocisission. 

The Draft Plan has been studied by the responsible boards of the Town of Chatham. 
A public hearing was held in Chatham on June 6, 1978. Itie coEsaents given herein 
were developed by a Joint Review Oomrai ttee composed of representatives of: 

Board of Selectmen 

Board of Health 

v&tter dilution Control Board 

Planning Board 

Conservation Corjaission 

Natural Resources Advisory Cooaittee 

Respectfully submitted, 



±J»m/ TWL rM 




.itword T. Harrington, aytirraan 
3oard of Selectman 



Wilfred N. Goodridge, Member 
Cape Cod Planning and Economic 
Development Commission & Areawide 
Planning Advisory Committee 




CC: Cape Cod Planning and Economic / 
Development Commission V 
Attn: Sylvia Daniels 



55 



Town of Chatham APPENDIX A 1 

Wastewater Management Problem Areas 

lo p. 4-22 Map 4.1 # text p e 4-19 & 20 - Another map, prepared by 
Metcalf and Eddy, En£ineers > in a study with recommendations 
specifically for the Town of Chatham is included here. Both 
maps direct attention to several local areas, chiefly south 
of Main Street in Chatham. While the maps differ somewhat 
in boundaries of the areas, it will be understood that any 
project for sewering or other abatement action will first 
examine the situation in full detail and will thus indicate 
the boundaries of the area to be treated. Chatham is pro- 
ceeding on this basis and expects that both maps will be 
relevant for th,is purpose. 



2* p. 4-19 Additional Management Problem Areas - 

A current study (197&) indicated that past and future 
development in a certain residential area of \ acre lots 
may create a problem situation within a few years. 
(1) The lot areas are minimum and can well result in on- 
site, waste disposal difficulties. (2) The whole area is 
upgradient from a densely settled part of the town already 
designated as Category 2 or 3 . (3/ The area lies within 
one mile of the sewage treatment plant* It is contiguous 
to Main Street, South Chatham, for which sewer system ex- 
tension is included in the long range plan. The subject 
area lies along Morton Road and Meeting House Road, ex- 
tending north approximately one mile from Main Street, to 
the joining of the two roads and the northern limit of 
the 10,000 sq. ft. lot area zone, as indicated on a map 
included here. It is recommended that this area be con- - 
sidered in Category 3. 

3. p. 4-22 Management ProblemArea in Question - Referring 
to Map 4.1 and Reference No. 9 of Table 4.1 Summary, the 
basis for designating this as a Category 2 area needs to 
be clarified. The area is undefined. Goose Pond Heights 
is a new subdivision, on paper but entirely undeveloped. 
There are no soils data and no history of septic problems 
in the vicinity. The entire area is now zoned for 40,000 
sq. ft. lots. In the Goose Pond Heights subdivision the 
lots range from 20,000 to 30,000 sq. ft., with the larger 
lots adjacent to the pond. A few tracts have not yet been 
divided into lots. 

It may be that available data applies more properly to 
the vicinity of the intersection of Old Queen Anne Road 
and Route 137, where a small general store exists, and 
where further limited business development may ultimately 
be allowed. 

It is recommended that both areas (Goose Pond and Route 
137) be considered in Category 3 for the present. 2 

36 



Town of Chatham APPENDIX A 

4. 



p. 4-20 Table 4.1 - Summary of Problem Areas - Further 
to Items 2 and 3 of this Appendix, an amendment to the 
Table, for Chatham, is included here, showing: 

Reference No. 9- West Side of Goose Pond - Cate 
Reference No. 12- added: Morton Road - Cate 



gory 3 
gory 3 



Management 



5. p. 4-&9 On-site System Management - The recommendations 
of a septic system maintenance program (paragraph 3, page 
4-90), valid as they are recognized to be, can not be es- 
tablished or implemented as set regulations at this time 
under prevailing conditions, but every attempt should be 
made to comply with the intent. The necessary actions in 
this direction include: 

1) Adoption of regulations and securing satisfactory 
compliance with regulations for septage hauler per- 
formance, including accurate reporting on type, lo- 
cation and condition (physical and biological) of 
on— site septic system's pumped and volume of septage 
pumped. 

2) Public education as to the workings of on-site sep- 
tic systems, the relationship to groundwater quality, 
the need for pumping at appropriate intervals, and 
the acceptance of the costs, 

3) Establishment by the town of routines for detecting 
individual and neighborhood conditions calling for 
official action, such data also contributing toward 
a townwide inventory of septic systems. 

4) Development of a practical basis for covering the 
cost of the program (both service and administration). 
It is anticipated that closer control of septage pump- 
ers will increase the cost over the present estimates. 

5) Adoption of initial program regulations applicable to: 
(a) new system only (for pumping) and (b) failing sys- 
tems close to surface water bodies or to water table 
(for rehabilitation or replacement). 

6. p. 4-93 Eeptage Management - Chatham has under construc- 
tion, for operation in 1973, a modification of its sewage 
treatment plant to allow acceptance of septage from con- 
tractors pumping out private septic systems. It is believed 
that this facility will have capacity for the foreseeable 
future. 

Use of the present lagoons at the landfill area is to be 
discontinues. 

If pumping of private septic systems on a regular and com- 
prehensive basis is instituted, septage treatment facili- 
ties of greater capacity probably will be necessary* 
Chatham is ready to cooperate in any study for regional 
septage handling program. 
(Reference may be made to page 7-15 of Chatham Profile.) 

37 



Town of Chatham APPENDIX A 



7. p. 5-14 Management Program - It is understood that 

zoning by-law changes regarding lot areas, land use and 
water supply protection areas must be based upon site- 
specific data including soils data, ground water monitor- 
ing, septic system performance records, developed cooper- 
atively by the Board of Health, the Planning Board and 
others, as well as on a long range plan for sewer and 
water services as recommended to Chatham ny the Metcalf 
and Eddy hydrogeologic-land use report of 1977. 



Profile - Town of Chatham 

So p» 7-14 - "Assessment" and "Recommendations" require 
no comment other than to note a typographical error in 
Remarks on page 7-15. The sentence should read "It is 6 
considered that this will accommodate septage needs for 
the foreseeable future" c 



201 Planning; Process 

9. p. 4-47 - It appears that funding availability is 

effectively limited to sewage treatment plants and direct- 
ly related facilities. Greater emphasis and funding assist- J 
ance should be given to the longer range goal of prevention 
and to projects which are developed to avoid future prob- 
lems with their more costly solutions. Incentives should 
be provided to property owners and municipalities to plan 
and adopt timely measures which are more cost-effective 
than the customary practices. 



38 



TOWN OF CHATHAM 



Appeadix A 1 




39 



Town of Chatham 



Appendix A 2 
&\ A 3- 




^ 



> 



MAP 4. 



AMENDED FOR CHATHAM 
Refereace No. 9 & 12 added. 



CAPE COD PLANNING AND 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 



40 



Town of Chatham 



Appendix A 4 



TABLE 4.1 SUMMARY OF PROBLEM AREAS - CONTINUED 



Town 



u 

V 



o 
z 

a 

u 

c 

« 

u 

© 

O 

(X 



Section of Town 



Sources of Inf orrra ti on 



Chatham 



Chatham 
(cont'd) 



Easternmost mile 
of Route 6-A 

Chatham Village, 
adjacent to areas 
presently sewered 

Main Street/Morris 
Island Road 

Eastern West 
Chatham, along 
Main Street 

Route 28, between 
South Chatham 
and Vest hatham 



3 

n. 

c 



u 



Q 
£ 



6 

7 
8 



10 
11 



12 



Harding Beach 
Road 

Ridgevale Road 

Cockle Cove Road 

Bayview Road/ 
Forest Beach 
Road 

West side of 
Goose Pond 

Orleans Road 

Eastward Ho 
Area at eastern 
end of Fox Hill 
Road 

Morton Road 



X 
X 
X 



u 

CJ 

iJ 
■0 

C -~i 

3 r~t 

O O 
U 3 
O O 



O ■"-> 

C l-< •** 

3 *J 3 

1/3 3: O 



C7» 

c 

o m 

c u 

-h o 

CP CL 

C 0) 



X 

X 
X 



J I 



NA 



KA 



KA 



KA 



KA 



C 
a 
-^ 
-o 
<a 
u 

O E 
i O 
a. i-i 



XJ 



«0 

o e 

o o 

.— « 

vi O 

o a 

AJ u 

n a. 



X 

X 



KA 
KA 
KA 

KA 

KA 
KA 



LI 



~l 



Li 

o 

0) 

•0 

o 



2 

2 
3 



2 
3 



41 






S JUKE 1 1 



I 




~s/rt4 j- ■ t^f/i.* 



% , ■ p ■ 



&€& i* 



. ROSS •■■ ?EI 

! ! 7 34£ 



Appendix B 









. $p? 









:<•, 



Memo to: 
From: 

Subject: 

Date: 



The Chatham 208 Study Committee 
George 3. Collins, 208 Representative 
Chatham Water Pollution Control Board 
Recommended changes to the 208 Wastewater 
Management Study 
July 13 t 1978 



The Chatham Water Pollution Control Board feels it is mandatory 
to establish a total plan for the Town of Chatham covering 
potential sewer extensions and to note those portions of the 
Town not recommended for sewering in the forseeabie future. 



Those areas not to be sewered should be considered for on- 
maintenance with periodic pumping of septic systems under 
guidelines established by the Board of Health, 



,ite 



The Water Pollution Control Board recommends the peripheral 
extension of the existing collection system similar to the 
phase 2 extension outlined by Whitman and Howard as follows: 

— Shore Road from the Coast Guard Station area north 
to Stepping Stones Road, 

---Then westerly along Stepping Stones Road to the 
intersection of Queen Anne Road, 

— Then continuing southerly on Queen Anne Road to 
Route 28 (Main Street). 

—All areas within those boundaries would be included. 

•-—Then an extension of the collection system westerly 
on Route 28 (Main Street) to the Harwich town line. 

— All areas south of Route 28 (Main Street) would be 
considered as potentials for the plan. 

—The area north of Route 28 (Main Street) in South Chatham 
including Morton Road and Route 137 (Meetinghouse Road) 
plus adjacent arteries and running north on Meeting- 
house Road to the intersection of Queen Anne Road. 

A 201 Facility Study Plan would eventually be made to establish 
engineering designs and the probable need to increase the size 
of the treatment plant. 



42 



Memo 


to: 


The Chatham 208 Study Committee 


July 


13, 


1978 


Page 


2 





This submittal study would be based on the demographics com- 
pleted in the Metcalf & Eddy report, the 208 Wastewater Man- 
agement Study and the map of the new and failing septic and/ 
or cesspool systems developed by the Town of Chatham. These 
total demographics would seem to indicate that an increase 
in nitrates flows will continue from sections north of Route 
28 to sections south of Route 28 from new on-site systems, 
breakdown of the existing on-site systems and the wastewater 
treatment plant, as well as other pollutant sources. This is 
due to the fact that water flows in Chatham generally tend to 
travel from a high point north of Route 28 towards Nantucket 
Sound on the south. 

The Water Pollution control Board recognizes the scope of the 
recommendations, but feels that with its existing treatment 
facility Chatham should plan to protect its w^ter quality 
thru sewering those areas where problems are daveloping and 
to establish a maintenance plan for those on-site systems that 
do not fit into the sewer plan. 



43 



LOCATIOK asl PLAKNIKG MAP 



HATHAM • CAPE COD • MASS 




/ 

Town of Chatham APPENDIX C 1 

Clarifications and Coreections 

'1. p e 4-63 Table 4d0 Sewer system Costs for Potential Sewer 
Service Area^s - It is understood that the "Flow (ttGD)" 
figure of ,71 MGD is based upon the service area indicated 
by Map 4<>2, and the cost figure of $3>000,000 assumes the 
construction of approximately 3 miles of sewers and 3 pump- 
ing stations. However, as the flow of ,71 MSD exceeds the 
design capacity of the present sewage treatment plant, ( e 44 
MGD) it appears that further construction costs must be 1 
considered for expansion of the treatment plant. 

2. p. 5-15 Table 5-7 Land Analysis, 1995 - It is understood 
that the area of "Vacant Buildable " land (last column) is 
the remainder after calculation of "Developed" land, de- 
rived from Table 2.6 Land Analysis, 1975. The increase 
over 3,300 acres (Table 2.6) was calculated on the basis 
of estimated population growth with secondary effects 
(accompanying areas of new roads and business lots). If 
the secondary effects were not as great as assumed through- 
out the-table, the Developed Land, 1995 (Table 5.7) might 2 
be less" and the Vacant Land, 1995 might be more - a* 

600 to 800 acres. 

3. p. 5-26 Table 5.10 Water Use - It is known that the 
"Pumping Total (Gal.) for Chatham - 259,534,140 - is the 
amount for the Chatham Water Company only, and all figures 
derived from this must be so understood. I'etcalf & Eddy 
estimates that this is 55^ of the total water consumption 
of the Town, the additional 45/6 being obtained from private 
wells. On that basis, the Table should indicate approxi- 7 
mately 412,000,000 gal. as the total Chatham consumption. •> 
The "Daily Average" would be in the order of 2,200,000 MGD. 

4. p. 5-23 Table 5-11 Town Owned Watershed - It is understood 
that the Total Acres-1976 for Chatham (243) includes land 
held by the Cahtham Water Company and also the land owned 

by the Town of Chatham for water supply purposes. This does 
not include the tracts authorized in Special Town Keeting \\ 
on June 27, 1977 - 6 tracts, 33 acres in total, 

5- p. 5-37 Managinfii Growth, paragraphs 3^4 - It is under- 
stood that these should read: 

3. Towns will implement overall density requirements of 
one dwelling unit per one to one and one half acres in 
all public well recharge areas. 

4. Towms will implement density requirements of one dwell- 
ing unit per acre in all area* relying on private wells, c 
around and upgradient of ponds and coastal embayments. 



45 




#> 



^1» 



Office of 



Ofatmt af SenntB 

South Dennis, Mass. 02660 



SELECTMEN 
394-0901 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 
394-0901 

ASSESSORS 
394-0903 

BOARD OF HEALTH 
394-0905 



July 13, 1978 



Mr. Robert E. Robes 

Cape Cod Planning & Economic 

Development Commission 

1st District Court House 

Barnstable, Massachusetts 

02630 

Re: 2 08 Wast e- Water Management PI an 

Dear Mr . Robes : 

At their regular meeting of July 11, 1978, the Board of 
Selectmen reviewed the report of the 208 Waste/Water Study 
Committee and endorsed this report except those provisions 
relating to monies. 

The Board of Selectmen of the Town of Dennis make no 
commitment either in favor or against any of these expenditures 
on the grounds that they are unauthorized to do so unless accepted 
by Town Meeting Vote. 

Regarding the recent letter on continuing water quality 
planning funds, we have requested comments from our departments 
and this item will come before the Board at their next regular 
meeting on July 25, 1978. 

Thank you for your cooperation. 



Very truly yours, 



lobert E. O'Neil 



R 

Town Couns e 1 



REO/ETW 

cc: Donald Moncevicz 

Water Study Committee 



46 




r <> \v \ o i mm n \ \\ w i c h 



Harwich, Massachusetts 

02645 

208 

As required by the Federal Law relating to water quality known as 
Sec. 208 of PL 92-500, the Board of Selectmen appointed a seven member 
committee to review the draft Environmental Impact Statement dated March, 1978. 
This draft plan was developed by the 208 Areawide Planning Advisory Committee 
and said plan is the result of 2 years of meetings and hearings. 

Specifically, the area of discussion and concern for the Harwich Committee, 
established for purpose of local imput, was to discuss the chapters relating 
to wastewater management, land use and non-point sources of pollution, and 
areawide management structure. To that end, the .questionaire seemed to be the 
best device to begin with at the Public Hearings. Three Public Hearings were 
held, and though well advertised, there was no one in attendance but the 
Committee and the Press. 

The Committee in answering the questionaire felt it was lacking in clear 
meaning as to the role of the local Government and the CCPEDC regarding the 
development and management of a water quality monitoring system in the region. 
If such a system is developed how would information gathering and analysis be 
carried out? 

Under the wastewater management section the Committee was of the opinion 
that the bias toward treatment of sewage was important to those Towns currently 
experiencing difficulty with water quality but said nothing in favor of those 
Towns who for future protection of the water supply would favor acquisition of 
land around a well field or other public water supply to achieve the goal of the 
208 Program. In other words, a Town of Towns seeking to prevent pollution might 
not receive encouragement for land acquisition as a means to prevent a problem 
as easily as those areas with current abatement problems. It may be that land 
acquisition will be cheaper in the long term than construction and maintainance 
of a central sewage system. Certainly prevention is a sound environmental 
improvement over cure, and reduce the need for large scale sewers. The Town of 
Harwich emphasises the acquisition concept as its primary concern. 

Soil testing should have some method whereby annual water level standards 
could be seasonally adjusted so as to allow home construction for more than three 
quarters of the year. To require so much advance planning would be a hardship 
on the community as well as the individual. Harwich already exceeds the 
requirements of Title V. The figures representing the estimated cost for staff, 
sub regional treatment sites, and interim lagoon systems are much too low, and 
realistically revised to reflect total cost and maintainance. 

Land use and non-point source control is currently in force in Harwich to a 
major extent. The Committee unanimously agreed that road salt be applied 
consistant with public safety for travel being the primary concern. The Committee 
also agreed that storage containers for gasoline and oil and hazardous chemicals 
currently fall under State regulations, and revision if needed should be handled 
at that level. 

47 



- 2 - 

Areawide management found agreement in principle, but further debate was 
necessary relating to the costs of the program, and the source of the funding. 

Local perspective in relation to the Town of Chatham will require a great 
deal of additional information before any positive program could be developed. 
The two Towns have well fields adjacent to a common boundary, and the proximity 
of the Chatham sewage treatment facility is critical. 

The following observations are offered - No test results of local soil 
conditions and the impact of current sub surface sewage regulations exist. 
Better evidence is needed. The concept of centralized sewage treatment wherein 
the concentration of a Town's sewage in one section of the Town could be a future 
problem similar to Otis and possible contamination of Falmouth water supply. 
On the other hand, the concept of dispersion of less concentration by use of on 
lot systems by households based on careful planning should be acceptable. The 
statistics available on central sewage with the energy costs required to drive 
them may not be dependable. Also, what State and Federal funds are available to 
allow a Town the alternative to phase in additional wells or to upgrade wells if 
a pollution danger exists in present wells? This option may be less expensive 
than mandated requirements to construct treatment plant as a technique toward 
pollution abatement. County review of variances to Title V would appear to speed 
up the current system, and perhaps even allow for innovation as new ideas technical 
data is made available, particularly in the area of new experimental systems. 



TOWN OF HARWICH 

Members of the Plan Review Committee involved in completing the questionnaire: 



Dr. Carl L. Clapp, citizen of the Town of Harwich 
Norman Clark, citizen of the Town of Harwich 
Irving Lightbown, citizen of the Town of Harwich 
Richard Hathaway, Representing Harwich Water Department 
James Stewart, Representing Harwich Planning Board 
David Thyng, Building Inspector 



Haden G. Greenhalgh, Chairman 
Representing Se lee tmen^and„ Board of Health 



48 



WAST EW ATER MA NAGELO: NT 



While this Committee exists as a result of the proposed Water Quality 
Management Flan Environmental Impact Study for Gape God, its primary 
responsibility is to the residents cf the town of Harwich, and there- 
fore its participation in the program should be directed to those ac- 
tions, advice, and planning which will be of direct benefit to the 
town. If the opportunity still exists to retain the town's identity 
in the formulation of an acceptable local 208 program, then let Har- 
wich remain separate, distinct, and apart from the national mess which 
includes Home Care, Home Health Care, Subsidized Housing, Public Wel- 
fare, ^id to Dependant Children, Children in Need of Services, CETA, 
ErA, etc, etc, etc. 

In tnis connection and with specific reference to the management of 
wastewater, it appears that a basic course of action might well ac- 
complish the objectives. Webster defines a problem as "..a question 
raised for inquiry, consideration or solution;. . . .a source of per- 
plexity, distress, or vexation. . " and as a synonym refers to the 
word, "Mystery". Too often people are inclined to react to the latter 
part of the definition rather than the former, and this tends to com- 
pound the confusion rather than arriving at a solution. 

The existing and potential problem areas have been identified in the 
Draft Plan, and efforts should be mad? constantly to keep them sep- 
arate and address them properly. Within these areas are individual 
systems which are adequate, which are mechanically unfit, which are 
obsolete, and which are not only efficient but maintained in an effi- 
cient manner. All of them must be considered as to how they affect the 
individual user, the immediate neighborhood, and, in the end, the en- 
tire town. 

Regulations established by the Board of Health which must include the 
the active participation bj septage contractors aa well as a profes- 
sional sanitation Inspector will serve as part of the overall Flan 
for 208 Irogram. To be effective and meaningful widespread distribu- 
tion should be made of these regulations. Each person who, while within 
the boundaries cf the town, takes a shower or cooks a meal and washes 
the dishes, goes to the John, builds a house, or has a drink of water 
plays a part in what happens to water. It then follows naturally that 
to one degree or another each of these people has a responsibility to 
himself and his neighbors to be aware of what happens to water. Public 
Education is the foundation for the success of this or any other pro- 
gram. 



KbrflMWu CvJ^tU% 



49 



I rv ing ._ ightbown 



^ear daaen, 

here is my under standing of a couple of rnajjor points we iiscassed 
ar ?ur last two water Quality meetings: 

1. .-Watershed land acq uisition^ 

The Draft Plan states f or, page U-u7j "Cape God towns .......are 

eligible for state and federal grants under r^ 92-5JO. To promote that 
law's goals of cleaning up tne nation's waters. ..... .the federal government 

will pay 75 percent of tne eligible costs of local sewer treatment projects! 
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts will pay 15 per cent of eligible costs of 
approved projects. . . . ." 

But (our discission brought out) prevention is better than cure. If 
we can prevent o;*r municipal water supply from being polluted in the first. 
plains we nave achieved the goals of tne Clean mater Act and of the mater 
^uaiity Management i Ian in a much more environmentally sound way. me will 
nave prevented pollution at the scarce and made the necessity of building 
sewers on a large auiskxiasxxiikBiyx scale much less likely. 

,'heee water quality goals are se t forth in the report teg.gjja>:ikg 
en page I*& l-u« Coal #3 (f-tWJt>a««*iaa; sa„.s, "To preserve the quality u quantity 
of the drinking water supply for present ana future populations of .Cape Cod" 

furthermore (the Report goes en to say) "In realization of these goals 
tne following objectives for the ongoing 208... program ore established: '' 

objective #5, "To identify watershed areas contributing recharge to 
existing and potential drinking water supplies, and to provide for the pro- 
tectionof the water quantity and quality through special regulations of 
waste water disposal practices and ! and use in those areas." 

since v;0 would be achieving the stated goals of preserving the drinking 
water supply for ore se nt and future populations of Cape Cod by protecting 
the municipal water supply, we believe we should set about doing this by tne 
acquisition of land in watershed areas of prese nt and future municipal 
well fields. Present well fields, according to tne implications of the Report , 
are net adequately protected from future pollution, for page $-27 states, 
"Protection of 11.5 acres of watershed does not, however, prevent dissolved 
constituents from contaminating the well. Public water supply wells draw 
water from under a land area extending, in most cases, far beyond the bound- 
aries of the protected watershed areas" Tn\js we need more land, both to 
protect our present well fields and to protect our future well fields for 
municipal water. 

Therefore we believe that the final 2Qd iteport should state, clearly 
ana firmly, that the same amount of dollar funding shoula be available for 
acquisition of land adequately to protect present and future municipal well 
fields as is now available for building sewers. The goals of such land 
acquisition are tne same goals as are set forth in tne r.eport, and the method 
of reaching these goals is more e nvironmentally so and that is builaing sewers. 

2. ^nsite disposal systems 

Uur discussions brought out that more information than was contained 
in the report was needed to determine the best methods of rehabilitating 
present onsite systems, and that the installers should be contacted to find 
out from them what their groundroots experience was. 



50 




^er#^ 




TOWN OF 6&&B& HARWICH 



Harwich, Massachusetts 

02645 
BUILDING DEPARTMENT (617) 432-0262 

July 27, 1978 

Chairman-Harwich 208 Study Committee 

The following are my major concerns with the 208 Draft 
Plan: 

1) Lack of pertinent and factual data - 

a) No testing of systems in our local soil conditions 
has been conducted to find out what degree of con- 
tamination we are experiencing. 

b) To what degree has compliance with Title V improved 
our situation, or to what degree will it improve? 

c) To what degree are the non-complying systems con- 
taminating the aquifer? 

d) Emphasis seems to be to concentrate sewage in 
treatment areas. Is this truly better than in- 
dividual on-site systems. 

e) Ground water flow should be defined. 

f) No adequate records on water table (rise and fall). 

2) Policing and enforcement for preventive maintenance plan. 
This could be very costly at a time of increasing service 
costs and tax rate. C /cl>-r> -1" i^A-cU 7^- Z/Kr^^^/i^y^r e^Unv-HJ 

3) If Title V compliance is one of the answers, equal en- 
forcement should be encouraged. 

4) Plan suggestion of joint sewerage for East Harwich and 
West Chatham places a treatment facility extremely close 
to the well fields we are trying to protect. 

5) If Harwich water is a potential regional resource, there 
should be regional, state or federal funding to provide 
additional protection acid well field expansion. 

6) Provision should be made for a local (county) Review 
Board for considering variances to Title V. DEQE cannot 
do this job fairly or adequately. Possible composition 
of this Board would be a DEQE Representative and four or 
six experienced personnel. Local inovative systems would 
be considered by this Board. 

51 



-2- 



Chairman- Harwich 208 Study Committee 



July 27, 1978 



7) 
8) 



Some credit should be given for seasonal usage. 

If on-site systems are supposedly bad, treatment 
facilities so expensive, and conditions of the aquifer 
deteriorating, why has no one tried to "build a better 
on-site residential system"? 




DET/b 



David E> 

Building Inspector 



52 




Qfoum of ilaHljpee jw s 1978 



BOARD OF HEALTH 
477-1777 



Mash-pee, Mass., 2....J.Une 1 



A .s 1 aula j... _a-nuson 



I-ublic I articip&tion Co-Ordinator CCPL.DG 
First: Jistrict Court Mouse 
Barnstable, Ila. 02630 

jear I aula: 

In relation to the Water Quality 1-lanagement Plan/ElS for Cape 
Cod review the liashpee B oard of Health makes the following 
recommendations to the Planning Board of liashpee so that the 
aims of the program may be facilitated: 

A. Recommends to the Planning Board the creation of a Well 

Field or source of Town Water Supply within the location 
of the Town Forest in Whitcombs Swamp. This area should be 
protected as a potential water supply source for the following: 

1. The Town Hall Area 

2. Route 130 area (although a hook up with the Gotuit 
Water district of B arnstable might be better) 

3. Johns Pond homes on the South East perimeter of the 
pond 

4. The United Church Village 

Bo Recommends to the Planning Board the need for requiring of 
Developers of Condominiums the use of septic systems which 
would provide treatment of effluent before discharge to the 
ground. This treatment to be proposed and used where cluster 
zone is concentrating the density of population on a small 
portion of a larger area. 

C. The Board of Health strongly urges the Planning Board to 
increase the residential lot size to a minimum of one (1) 
acre. 

Mashpee Eoard of Health 

Charles F. B uckingham, Chairman 

Roland L. Wilson, Agent 

Charles Lawrence, Clerk 

cc: P. Kagnuson 

Planning Board of liashpee 5 , 
liashpe Board of Selectmen 
Norman' Fitzgerald 

Timothy Hennigan 



own <>j Q/andwich 




.JUL 2 m 

BOARD of HEALTH 



SANDWICH. MASSACHUSETTS 02563 



July 19, 1978 



U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
Environmental and Economic Impact Office 
John P. Kennedy Federal Building - Room 2203 
Boston, MA 02203 

Attention Robert E. Mendoza 

Dear Sir: 

The Town of Sandwich Board of Health is in agreement with this Draft (E.I.S.) 
for the Cape Planning and Economic Development Commission Section 208 Water 
Quality Management Plan. We are a regulartory board and we feel we have provided 
a worth while program for the Town of Sandwich. We are an elected board of three 
members and have been as far back as the 17th century. We have been concerned 
with water quality and have tried over the years to protect the quality of the 
water. For about twenty years the Board of Health along with the State Sanitary 
Codes has had regulations for septic tanks, cesspools, pits, filter beds along 
with grease traps and distribution boxes. From time to time we have made out our 
own regulations to improve on the systems. We were perhaps one of the first towns 
to accept Article XI of the State Sanitary Code. We have made a regulation that 
all wells shall be 50 feet from all property lines so that all wells will be 100 
feet from one another and 100 feet from all subsurface disposal systems. This 
regulation we made in 1972. We have accepted Title V for the subsurface disposal 
of Sanitary Sewage and we enforce its provisions. This can not be said of other 
towns. Some towns have been very vocal in their opposition to Title V. Our 
Board inspects all developments for soil tests and percolation tests, as well. We 
have an agent that enforces Title V and also the State Plumbing Code. 

For perhaps thirty years that we are sure, this Board has always had the 
assitance of the Barnstable County Sanitarians. We appoint them every year to 
represent this Board and make the necessary inspections to systems and rest- 
aurants as required. The ponds, streams, wells and marshes are tested numerous 
times each year. In this way we have been able to inspect and assure the com- 
munity that the quality of the water in Sandwich has been good. 

The Board has up graded the older sanitary disposal systems by enforcing 
Article XI and now Title V. The new systems are required to be installed 
under the rules of Article XI and now under Title V. All subdivisions are 
required to have soil tests performed in the presance of our agent and in the 



54 



Board of Health Page 2 July 19, 1978 

number of places that we require. All installations that require the State 
officials to act on must submit plans to the State as well as to our Board. 
If the State does not inspect the systems, our Board's Agent will do the 
inspections. We feel we have been diligent in our efforts on subsurface 
disposal of Sanitary Sewage to insure, as well as possible, that we maintain 
the quality of water in Sandwich. 



The Town of Sandwich Board of Health has actively insisted that the Town 
have a sewerage system for Sandwich. We would like to see the entire Town 
sewered. We understand that the economics of that solution may not be possible 
now. We do, however, insist that the so-called central village including 
Sandwich Beach Shores, Old Main St., Water St., Grove St., Tupper Rd., Rte. 6A, 
Town Hall Square, Jarves St. and the area down town, east of the railroad 
tracks be sewered. This is the general area that the Weston Sampson Company has 
been planning. If the people do not vote for this system at a future Town meeting 
other means will have to take place at once. The Board of Health has an alternate pi 
on the drawing board that can be presented to the people for their approval. We 
can not at this time anticipate what the people will do about sewerage system for 
the Town. 

The Town of Sandwich in 1975> Had an operational study done by Whitman and 
Howard Engineering Co. for the Town disposal area. The result of the study 
developed into an operational plan for a Sanitary Land Fill. This Land fill has 
been accepted by the State D.E.Q,. E. and is a very successful operation. This 
also helps to protect the water quality in Sandwich. At the present time with 
the population of Sandwich, we can expect this land fill to be operational for 
at least 10 years. We are completing our recycling program this year. We have not 
deposited papers in this land fill for at least 15 years. From time-to-time, 
we have recycled ranges, refrigerators, etc. when there was a market for them. 
Sandwich has one of the few approved land fills on Cape Cod. 

We realize there are many more things to be accomplished, but they will 
take the combined efforts of all Town Departments and perhaps at some point a 
regional effort. If possible, we may attempt a regional septage system for 
Sandwich, Mashpee, and Bourne. 

Very truly yours, 
/ 










Robert H. Ellis 
Board of Health 

RHE:saa 

cc Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission 



55 




TOWN OF YARMOUTH 

WATER DEPARTMENT 

102 UNION STREET 
YARMOUTH PORT, MASS. 02675 

Water Commissioners the board of water commissioners meets every Monday 

at 7:30 p.m. at union street office 
FREDERICK J. THACHER 

ROGER G. EDWARDS. JR. 

THOMAS E. KELLEY 



SUPERINTENDENT 

paul wmsoN September 8, 1978 



$&1 1 m 



Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission 
1st District Court House 
Barnstable, Massachusetts 02630 

Attention: Mrs. Paula Magnuson 

Re: Draft Report 208 EIS 

As per our telephone conversation of today (7 September 1978) I would 
like to take this opportunity to rework on your Draft Plan for 208 
Water Quality. 

The report was generally well prepared and factual. However, I person- 
ally feel that Chapter 7 of the report needs qualification. While it 
is possible that Yarmouth might have to "borrow" water from Dennis, it 
is not probable. The reverse is also true. Current water inventory in 
Yarmouth is such that borrowing water under all but cataclysmic conditions 
is highly unlikely. 

Very truly yours, 



Z^c,/ C • Cc. u ■ 



1- 

A 

Paul A. Wilson 
Superintendent 



PAW/me 



56 



JUL 2 m 



July 19, 1978 



U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
Environmental and Economic Iir.pact Office 
John F. Kennedy Federal Building - Room 2203 
Boston, Mass. 02203 

ATTENTION J Mr. Robert E. Mendoza 

Dear Mr. Mendoza t 

I have recently reviewed the "Water Quality Management Plan/EIS 
for Cape Cod." 

My particular concern is the lack of consideration which has been 
given to the Barnstable County Health Department under the discussion 
of "Monitoring Needs," Chapter 3, and "Monitoring, Testing and Analysis," 
Chapter 6. 

The Barnstable County Health Department Laboratory is a State 
Certified !>aboratory for bacterial and chemical monitoring, conducts 
all of the bacteriological sampling needs for all water departments on 
Cape Cod, performs chemical and bacteriological tests on private well 
water supplies, surface waters and has analyzed numerous underlying 
groundwater samples from sewage treatments plants and sanitary landfills. 
It is my sincere belief that our staff is well qualified and capable of 1 
planning and implementing a water quality monitoring program. I am 
very strongly opposed to having this proposed program divided under the 
Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission and the Barnstable 
County Health Department as has been recommended. It is my belief that 
it would be very unfair to the County taxpayers from a cost effective 
viewpoint and inefficient and unwieldy from a management viewpoint to 
add two or three planners and divide this program among different agencies. 2 

With the addition of one qualified environmental chemist, the 
Barnstable County Health Department could begin a water quality monitoring 



57 



U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
July 19, 1978 
Page two 



program today. Additional resources in the forra of laboratory equipment, 
supplies and personnel are already available. 

Should you desire any further information concerning my comments, 
I may be reached at 362-2511, extension 331. 

Sincerely yours, 

/S/ httf '*■ fi/K*^ 

Stetson R. Kail, R.5. 
Laboratory Director 



cc: Cape Cod Planning and 

Economic Development Commission 
First District Courthouse 
Route 6A 

Barnstable, Mass. 02630 
ATTENTION: Sylvia Daniels 

Mr. David Terry 

Department of Environmental Quality Engineering 

100 Cambridge Street 

Boston, Mass. 02202 



58 



July 19, 1978 



U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
Environmental and Economic Impact Office 
John F. Kennedy Federal Building - Room 2203 
Boston, Mass. 02203 

ATTENTION: Mr. Robert E. Mendoza 

Dear Mr. Mendoza: 

I wish to be on record as supporting wholeheartedly the Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement for the Cape Cod Planning and Economic 
Development Commission Section 208 Water Quality Management Plan. 
Considerable time and effort has been expended by many individuals and 
agencies in the development of it, and our staff of registered sanitarians 
is aware of the long-standing need for a detailed study and a comprehensive 
plan. 

Our primary function and major contribution to this plan will be in 
the area of water quality control, including the planning, implementation 
and coordination of services. This County Health Department is in a 
unique position, it has been in existence for 51 years, and to date, it 
is the only County Health Department in this state and in all of New England. 
The Department offers both direct and consultative services in sanitation. 
In 1957 a "Survey of the Health Needs of Barnstable County" was compiled by 
the Department of Public Health Practice of the Harvard School of Public 
Health, which has since become known as "the Harvard Survey". This survey 
recommended that the County Health Department increase the sanitary 
bacteriology laboratory and employ a full-time laboratory supervisor. 

For more than 20 years the County Health Department has planned and 
provided a monitoring service to the 15 towns here. Because of this 
experience and our expertise, we have taken issue with some of the statements 
and proposed plans which appear in the Draft Plan. 

1. We believe that the "chemist" listed under proposed personnel 

should be a permanent staff member of this department, and his/her 
salary should be determined in line with that of other professional 
staff here. 

59 



U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
July 19, 1978 
Page two 

2. We believe that this department has had a major role in 
planning, in coordinating and in implementing water quality 
monitoring and should not relegate these functions to 

Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission staff, 

in the manner proposed in Chapter 6 (6-11) • Further exploration 

of the process of joint planning and a clearer description of 1 

role relationships and administrative responsibility would be 

desirable. 

3. We are not recommending the "hiring of a health agent, at least 
on a part-time basis" by communities that "do not now" have one 
(6-11). First, all communities do have a health agent - some are 
full-time registered sanitarians, some are full-time with other 
backgrounds, some are the building inspectors who serve part-time 3 
as health agents, with the assistance of our staff sanitarians and 
myself. 

In the small communities it would not be cost effective to 
employ part-time or full-time sanitarians, and hence the County 
Health Department expects to continue to serve such populations. 

4. We expect to continue to inform, educate, coordinate, protect, 
prevent - in the area of water quality control - in accordance 
with our capabilities, as we do in other areas of health protection. 

I have urged our staff sanitarians and the town health agents to send 
in their own comments: some of the above comments may be reflected in their 
reviews also. 

Sincerely yours, 



Esther G. Howes 
County Health Officer 

EGH:pma 

ccj Sylvia Daniels 

Cape Cod Planning and 
Economic Development Commission 

Barnstable County Commissioners 

David Terry 

Department of Environmental 

Quality Engineering 

60 




COASTAL ZONE 
MANAGEMENT 



zJ/ie [qo 



Executive (l/^ice of (onvewnmcn/a/ ' Sv/Iatrl 
400 wamln'f/ae <y/reet 
Mton, *JLttac/iu>>etk 02202 fc\)& * ° *" 



MEMORANDUM 



TO: Dave Terry, 208 Program, DEQE 



FROM: Les Smith, CZM / 
DATE: August 7, 1978 



^ 



/ 



SUBJECT: Draft EIS and Proposed 208 Water Quality Management Plan for Cape Cod 



Overall, the draft plan is very well done. The Cape Cod Planning and Economic 
Development Commission's 208 staff, as well as everyone else involved in the 
development of this planning document are to be commended for their good work. 

Line by line comments 

Page S-9 # 2 - S torm Water Runoff - Urban runoff pollutants are concentrated in 

the bottom sediments of harbors, usually located in estuaries or 
embayments. When these pollutants are resuspended and mobilized 
by ship traffic, dredging or other disturbances, they pose a 
grave danger to the water quality of these coastal waters. This 
problem merits some discussion in the plan. 

Page S-9 // 4 - Hazardous Chemical Spills and Disposal - Oil spills in coastal 

waters should be discussed because they are one of the major 
pollutants contaminating marine resources such as shellfish. 

Page S-9 // 6 - Control of Non-Point Source Impacts on Ponds - Long range land 

use control techniques should be instituted where appropriate, 
rather than use of herbicides. 

Page S-13 - Local Conservation Commissions - Conservation Commissions in 

their review of projects for inland and coastal wetlands should 
ensure that pollution does not have an adverse effect on the 
groundwater and public water supply and shellfish and marine 
fisheries resources. 



Page S-15 



DEQE - Mention should be made of the wetlands program of DEQE 
and the need to develop inland wetlands regulations with 
performance standards to protect water quality. 



3 



4 



5 



61 



8 



Page 2-1 - Geologic Formation - A more recent geologic map of Cape Cod was put 
together by Oldale as a 1976 U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report, 
The Sandwich moraine on Oldale' s map does not extend as far to the 
east as shown on the Strahler map. 

Page 3-48 - Impact of Boating and Non-Point Sources on Coastal Embayments - The 
case study of predicted pollutant loading from vessels' discharges 
into Falmouth Harbor points to a common problem being experienced 
in overcrowded, restricted coastal waters throughout Cape Cod. 
Although this study is by no means conclusive, it does point out 
the need to do a detailed analysis of this serious coastal problem. 

Page 4-71 - Vessel Discharges - Discharges from Recreational Vessels : Federal 
regulations require marine sanitation devices on all recreational 
vessels equipped with sanitary facilities. With the approval of the 
Administrator of EPA, certain water bodies can be designated as no 
discharge areas if the protection and enhancement of the waters 
requires greater protection than would be afforded by use of MSDs. 
If it is definitively determined through a basin planning study, or 
other water quality study that discharges from recreational vessels 
in a particular water segment are causing a violation of the segment's 
water quality standards, CZM will recommend that the segment be 
designated as a no-discharge water. If boating activity in this area 
is such that it is generally confined to the segment, sufficient pump- 
out facilities should be provided at either public boating facilities 
in the segment, or if this is not feasible, at new private marinas if 
any are proposed for location in the segment. (MGLA c. 91, s. 59B 
will be used to require pumpout facilities at private marinas if 
necessary.) CZM will actively work with EPA and DUPC and marina owners 
to coordinate implementation of this recommendation as necessary. 

Page 4-89 - Title V - Limiting the months for groundwater observation tests makes q 
sense. Percolation tests could be performed anytime. 

In coastal areas, the groundwater elevation changes in response to 
changes in the tidal cycle. Groundwater observation tests should be 
performed over a long enough time period to observe the effects of ]_(] 
the highest period of the tidal cycle. In addition, corrections 
should be made to reflect the level of the observation well during 
the highest spring tide. 



Towns are encouraged to adopt setbacks from mean high water greater 
than the 50 ft. minimum limit of Title V. In many instances, during 
spring high tides and during storm elevated sea levels, subsurface 
disposal systems would be inundated by sea water if the setback 
were only 50 ft. 

Page 6-6 - Monitoring, Testing and Analysis - To properly understand the water 
quality status of Cape Cod's groundwater and surface water systems 
monitoring, testing and analysis are definitely required. The 
monitoring network should include setting up monitoring wells 
associated with sanitary landfills to observe for leachate pollution 
problems. 



11 



12 



62 



Page 6-7 - Land Use Management - Setback distances to ponds and coastal water 

bodies should be established to minimize eutrophication. 23 

Zoning By-laws - Protection zones should be established around 
present and future well sites. 

Education - Local citizens must be educated on the value of the 
groundwater system. The APCC has done a commendable job in this ~\h 
area. The following subjects need to be emphasized: 

(1) Septic systems care; 

(2) Encourage adoption of local protective zoning by-laws; 

(3) Local support of regional, state and federal water quality 
programs. 

Page 6-9 - Local Conservation Commissions also control storm runoff, erosion 

and sedimentation in wetlands and 100 ft. from the edge of wetlands. 13 

Page 6-16 - Multi-208 Alternative - This alternative appears to be the most 
realistic for Cape Cod. The Cape definitely needs a technical 
staff to help towns with water quality problems and for the 
coordination of 201 activities. 

Page 6-19 - Plan should provide information on the role of Conservation 

Commissions in the review of projects for wetlands areas. MGLA ic 
c. 131, s. 40 authorizes local Conservation Commissions to protect 
groundwater and public water supplies and prevent pollution in 
their review of wetland notices. 



LBS:sar 



63 



^ JUL 2 19% 

MICHAEL S DUKAKIS /J?) // 

GOVERNOR ZOolfo/?, <yMal.i. f#/Pc? 




WILLIAM G FLYNN 
SECRETARY 



July 17, 1978 



Ms. Sylvia Daniels 

Cape Cod Planning and Economic 

Development Commission 
First District Court House 
Barnstable, MA 02630 

Dear Ms. Daniels: 

The Department of Community Affairs has received a copy of the Cape 
Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission's Draft Environmental 
Impact Statement and Proposed 208 Water Quality Management Plan for Cape 
Cod and has had the opportunity to review that document. 

In its review of materials prepared by the State's 208 agencies, the 
Department has been concerned that the adoption of many of the management 
recommendations discussed in those reports may make it more difficult to 1 
construct low- and moderate-income housing in Massachusetts. The Department 
wishes to emphasize that the State's 208 agencies must recognize the rela- 
tionship between, for instance, land use controls and housing opportunities 
and must integrate their 208 proposals with their other policies and 
objectives as planning agencies. 

Of particular concern to the Department is the implication that 
population growth should be managed to accommodate water quality plans 
rather than that water quality plans should be designed to accommodate 2 
population growth. The State has recently informed local development officials 
(joint letter from William G. Flynn, Secretary, Executive Office of Communities 
and Development, and Frank Keefe, Director, Office of State Planning, to 
local development officials, June 23, 1978) that in implementing the State 
growth policy at the local level, "the emphasis is on accommodating rather 
than on 1 imiting growth." Such a policy requires the employment of 
incentives to attract development to areas where it can be efficiently 
serviced simultaneously to the employment of disincentives to development 
in outlying areas. 



An Equal Opportunity Employer 
64 



-2- 



In this context, the Department be 
Scheduling By-Law (included as Appendix 
management and should not be used as a 
has significant potential to raise the 
and may discourage larger scale, "plann 
environmental advantages over scattered 
growth is inevitable on an areawide sea 
increased growth pressures on neighbori 
type of growth management mechanism is 
and growth policies of the State. In a 
may not only limit the availability of 
may take away protection given to devel 



lieves that the Bourne Development 

E) is an inadequate tool for growth 
possible model. This type of by-law 
development cost of new construction 
ed" communities which offer potential 
single-lot development. Since most 
le, such arbitrary growth quotas impose 
ng communities. Consequently, this 
in direct conflict with both the housing 
ddition, development scheduling by-laws 
new housing in any given year, but also 
opers by Section 6 of The Zoning Act . 



The Department feels that the Commission's report does not adequately 
consider the fiscal impact that the alternative proposals would have on Cape 
Cod property owners. It should be noted that septic system operation and 
maintenance costs, sewering betterment costs, user charges, etc., could have 
a major impact on the region's tourism and retirement industries. In addition, 
we wish to point out that a community's share of design, capital costs, and 
operating costs (which could result in an increase of "from a few cents to a 
few dollars per $1,000 to the general property tax rate") could be quite 
significant for the Cape's towns with their presently low tax rates. The 
omission of such analysis also makes it difficult to assess the impacts that 
any of the 208 alternatives would have on housing opportunities. Of equal 
concern is the virtual disregard for the enhancement of housing opportunities 
in the design of the alternatives. 



While the Department is in a 
that enforcement of Title 5 must 
should be allowed to do so by ado 
in Title 5 without obtaining the 
Quality Engineering (see our May 
different matter, with regard to 
Protection Districts (included as 
for exemptions, Section 9 of The 
may only be used for specific typ 



greement with the Commission's recommendation 
be strengthened, we do not feel that communities 
pting regulations more stringent than those 
approval of the Department of Environmental 5 
6, 1977 letter to Mr. David Terry). On a 
the Model Bylaw for Public Water Supply 
Appendix G), special permits cannot be used 
Zoning Act makes clear that special permits b 
es of uses. 



Finally, the Department recognizes the importance of on-going septic 
system maintenance programs and hopes that our report Managing Seasonal 
Neighborhoods in Transition has been of use to the Commission's 208 staff 




erel 




\ 




JPS/bb 

cc: Robert Mendoza, EPA 
David Terry, DEQE 
Wayne Sherwood, DC A 
MEPA Office 



John P. Sawyer, 

Administrator 

Division of Community Services 



65 



MEMORANDUM 



OBJECT : CCPEDC-- Draft 

EIR - March 1978 - 208 



TO: Dave Terry 

FROM: Paul T. Anderson, R.E.E 
Southeast Region 

DATE: 17 July 1978 




I have no major problem with the report. I suggest that all laboratory 
unctions be handled by the County Health Departnient and that the 208 agency 
tay out of public water supply as duplicative of DEQE's function. 2 



TA/lp 



66 






<t Amy $ 



'W K !,»>•» 



DAVID 5TANDLEY 

COMMISSIONER 



'/// (SO ///? 




m /im 



r JAstr/t Mr/ft 



( urai/cir {_ y/icf < : f GniKronmcpfaf, SW/a(rJ 
^/V/iaytmerd 01 (Dnw'wnmenldl ^Zuau/u (i)naineer-i?ia 

600 Washington Street, Boston 02111 



AUG 1 Rett 



SUBJECT: Water Quality Management Plan/EIS 
for Cape Cod (3/78) 



TO: Dave Terry, DEQE 



FROM: Robert Klehm, DAHMi 



DATE: August 3, 19 78 



S-ll Point 6 - Towns should take immediate action to regulate the 

the disposal of hazardous wastes 

The State has the power to regulate the disposal of hazardous wastes. 
See regulation 16 of "Regulations for the disposal of Solid Wastes 
by Sanitary Landfill". 



S-15 



3-51 



9-53 



1 



In reference to DEQE assisting CCPEDC in developing acceptable regional 
solid waste management program. 2 

This task falls under the jurisdiction of DEM, not DEQE 



paragraph 1, line 2 
paragraph 1, line 5 
paragraph 5, line 4 



waste disposal is_ that layes (not ill) 

fill is customarily practiced_ (not practi ses ) 

532.5 mg/1 chloride (not hcloride) 



Table 3.13 

Ph should be pH 

Shouldn't all of the pH values be divided by 100? 

Why is the minimum pH value greater than the average value? 

for CaCO, Calcium, Alkalinity, Chloride, and BOD: Should the 

periods in the average and maximum values be commas? 

In the last line - 111 should be pH. 



4-35 Table 4.2 

Figure No. 1 - Disadvantages: A properly operated Sanitary 
Landfill should not provide a hazardous environment for the 
operators. 

Map 5.2 The legend does not state the meaning of the dashed contour 
lines. 
Do the contour lines represent altitudes above me^n sea level? 






67 



-2- 



5-20 Table 5.9 

In reference to the refuse annually generated by Winter Population; 
What is the source of the figure 2482 lbs/person/year? 

3-53 Table 3.14 

What does C.C.E. mean? 



Id 



68 







EVELYN F. MURPHY 
Secretary 



400 ioa)?iw('c/<7e ^street 
SSoUon, ^JiaUac/tiaetk 02202 



ffffri 



MEMORANDUM 



TO : 

FROM: 
DATE: 
RE : 



David Standley, Commissioner 

Department of Environmental Quality Engineering 

Evelyn F. Murphy, Secretary ///fyfy/ffi tffflw ^° 



July 21, 1978 



EOEA #02708, Draft Environmental Impact Report 
Water Quality Management Plan 



This document, which is a combined Water Quality Management Plan 
and Environmental Impact Report, presents a thorough analysis of the 
present quality of the water resources of Cape Cod and of appropriate 
measures to preserve water of high quality and to ameliorate existing 
pollution. The focus of the Water Quality Management Study was 
primarily on groundwater, the only source of drinking water in this 
unique and environmentally sensitive area of the Commonwealth. 

One vital component of comprehensive water resource management is 
a program of water conservation. Given the heavy demand on the 
water supply due to rapid population growth in many Cape towns over the 
last few decades and given also the heavy seasonal influxes to the area, 
it is essential to limit waste of high quality groundwater. An additional 
benefit to an effective program of water conservation would be the 
extension of the functional life of septic systems in a number of areas 
where soils arc not ideally suited to disposal of sanitary wastes. 
Although the report does make mention of the value of water conservation, 
further work needs to be done to develop and to implement water 
conservation as a complement to the water quality management program 
described in this report. 



EFM/MK/dlb 



69 




MICHAEL S. DUKAKIS 

GOVERNOR 

FRANK T. KEEFE 

DIRECTOR 



The Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

OFFICE OF STATE PLANNING 

JOHN W. McCORMACK BUILDING ROOM 2101 

ONE ASHBURTON PLACE 

BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02108 

(617) 727-5066 



MEMORANDUM 



TO: 



FROM: 



David Standley, Commissioner 
DEQE , 

Frank T. Keefe 



SUBJECT: OSP Review of Areawide "208" Water Quality Management Plans 



DATE: 



August 24, 1978 



Attached you will find OSP's comments on the Final Draft "208" Water 
Quality Management Plans which have been completed thus far by the region- 
al Planning agencies. As you will see, the comments are given from the per- 
spective of the effects these plans will have on the Commonwealth's Growth, 
Urban Revitalization and Economic Development policies, and the adequacy 
of the management alternatives discussion. While there were few if any ac- 
knowledgements of the Local Growth Policies much less State Policies, the 
"208" recommendations are generally supportive. For example, there were 
few mentions of the benefits for downtown growth and revitalization derived 
from sewage treatment plant expansions, and the full impact on industries 
trying to comply with clean water laws and regulations was seldom discussed 
in depth. However, since the recommendations follow the policies, in the 
main, I see no problem with the Governor certifying them from that stand- 
point . 

However, my major concern with the RPA's "208" products (the process 

and various governmental roles will be the topics of a future letter) is that 

their discussions of management and coordination techniques are consistently 
weak and superficial. 

I would think that identifying potential conflicts, examining decision 
making forums, and exploring innovative ways to coordinate and monitor the 
many intergovernmental management agencies would he appropriate subject 
matter for "Z08" management plans. However, in many cases this opportunity 
was apparently declined. 

Consequently, I am recommending that certification for areawide manage- 
ment be withheld until a more comprehensive, detailed discussion of manage- 
ment and coordinative alternatives is completed in supplementary work. The 
exceptions to this are SRPEDD, Berkshire County, and Central Massachusetts 
RPA's which have adequately addressed the management topic. 



70 



OSP recommends that the Governor certify "208" Water Quality Manage- 
ment Plans according to the following chart: 

State and Local Adequacy of Management 

RPA Policy Compatibility Alternatives Discussion 

Berkshire County Yes Yes 
(Upper Housatonic River) 

Cape Cod Yes No 

Central Massachusetts Yes Yes 

Martha's Vineyard Yes No 

Montachusett-Nashua Yes No 

Old Colony Yes No 

SRPEDD Yes Yes 

■ 

Note: Reviews of the MAPC and NMAC "20«" plans will be completed in the 
near future. 



71 



Review of "20b" Water Quality Management Plan for Cape Cod 
I.. Compatibility with State Policies 

A. Growth Policy 

The Cape's residents are concerned with preserving the Cape's nat- 
ural environment and the character of their communities (Local Growth Pol- 
icy Statements, 1976). The problems caused by the rapid growth and urban- 
izing trend of certain areas has been alarming to most residents. While 
there is general acceptance that continued growth is inevitable, many resi- 
dents are concerned with developments (such as sewage treatment facilities) 
that will accelerate growth and damage the Cape's natural resources. It 
appears that all recommended alternatives for the management of water qual- 
ity on Cape Cod are compatible with both local and state growth policies. 
These alternatives are designed to keep large scale sewage treatment facili- 
ties to an absolute minimum, thus avoiding unwanted growth in rural areas 
as well as urbanized areas. 

B. Economic Development Policy 

The 208 analysis indicates that the Cape's economy is based in 
households, rather than industrial or institutional facilities for a sub- 
stantial portion of the Cape's economic growth. On-lot waste disposal is 
the method most commonly used by small scale buildings. The 208 plans in- 
dicate that this method will be recommended for most industrial develop- 
ment on the Cape in order to limit the amount of sewage treatment facilities. 

C. Urban Revitalization 

The major urban center for the Cape is Hyannis. With increased pri- 
mary waste water disposal systems this area will be better suited for at- 
tracting business, light industrial manufacturing companies, and year round 
residents. 

II . Water Quality Management Techniques 

The proposed methods of waste water management will protect the quantity 
and the quality of the Cape's drinking water as well as the recreational wa- 
ter. The management plans include: Location of major point and non-point 
sources of pollution, maintain population growth, minimize land development, 
maintain appropriate population density in sewered areas. 

III. Unique Proposals 

Cape Cod is not particularly interested in a massive over-designed 
water treatment plan. This region, as a whole, wishes to maintain the sta- 
tus quo with provisions for moderate growth and future development (on a 
small scale). All approved alternatives refer to the continued "se of on-lot 
waste disposal with primary and secondary treatment facilities as back-up 
systems . 



72 



jul 1 9 m 



J^jly 12, 1978 



U. 3. Environmental Protection 

Acreney 
Environmental and ~eonc*r>ic 

Irrpnct uliiic^ 
John 1% £&nnedy Federal Building 

Econa 2033 
Beaton, Massachusetts 02203 

ftTOfi Robert S« Monacza 

Dear Mr. ften:3o?ai 

we have contpletao* a review of the Draft Plan/Fnvire»r?ental 

Cc£ prosfoceo Say the Caes ecu j^rficnr.I rXrTJmn^ ; ; n-..'. z.conc«nic 
Development Con*.rai33ion (C€?£DC) , and the following cordon La are 
provided. 

It is assumed that thia report is eona intent with the 

approved Project Control Plan* and that the land use anJ growth 
elessente of the crialy»i« arc consistent with Hassachuaetts 
Chapter 807 crewth policy sta tennis* 

In making those assumptions the Department exoecta com- 
patibility of land use end orcwrii u*ta and snalyoea tnu other 
asr>eat:i of the 2CD Study with tiio sane element;* of the con- 
current reoicnal transportation planning effort. The 
Department recogni;-o/j the CCI'.^C a 3 the s^enoy re<r>on3ibla for 
all iunctional planning in the region zr.d in this v-^ard the 
CC2LDC i* funded to ajauro the level of coordination neceasary 
to r.a}co tr&naportaticn ^iana and pro«3rarri.i co-TPE^i^le with 
other functional planning activities aa elesenta of the 
comprehensive regional plan. 

Finally, a concern ia noted with this draft plan as an 
"Environmental Impact StatOEent" becauae there is no explicit 



73 






^.Obort l*JM\$X>Z& 



July 12, l&m 



f;t?tt-D*".ortt of the transact: of this plsn for wat.ar 'reality en present 
arid ivtvx:® tzsn^rjox tft&im nysfcenis. It ii £teit; th:^ f although 
*s?& r«j«vix-4! tiws 20& pA&ft to 'da con ji* tent with och<.n: xunctioftal' 
pI&n-« rr*ii syntfr^f &? *n "anviron'-t&ntsi 2U*te!v&n&.' 4 it VnouJUi 
•srrvJLtcifclv r&>te s&a ir.^act it villi h**va on fcj. £ rugose rt ion a&d 






tIV9 OjiVllOft-'en 



i \i' J i_' :«£ ..» :.S ■ 



W;ysro structural aoi,u€.ioft3» wrtici) coi;.! •> '.warpiit. or indiica 
fu^nUicFnc ftrowth at*3 J.?»n3 w*;e ch»TV?o« era reco.:' ^nai?i thcrtf* 
coulc; .;s i-.pscta on. ggtistiiari travel corridor;* wfoica should 

t , • * •* ~. ••>» - « -< * -'t, * 

Dotal la& C<are>e.rtrGdnt cccspantfi *$r<s ^tttt^had'* 






co: 



a;? 

John Hurley 
«*ttchs 



V^sry truly vot?ra# 






74 



DPW - Environmental Section Review 
Water Quality Management Plan Draft EIS for Cape Cod - March 1978 



;> . 4-64 DPW has an interest where proposed potential sewer service 

areas would impact state highways as shown on map 4.2 oppo- 9 
site page 4-66. Areas should be shown where such conflicts 
may exist in a larger scale. Highway routes should be 
placed on the sewer maps. 



p. 5-21 Runoff of road salts is expected to be less of a problem 
as the DPW continues to pursue a "reduced salting policy' 
with better monitoring. 



3 



P. 5-21 The Department (DPW T ) has carried out a program to provide 

cities and towns with permanent salt sheds from a $1,000,000 
authorization. Those cities and towns, outside the MDC, L\ 
showing water supplies with a sodium contact greater than 
20 part per million are given high priority. The towns of 
the Cape region should take advantage of this program when 
future funds become available. 



P. 5-41 See notes above for page 5-21 and page 5-21 (salt sheds) . 



P. 7-14 Town of Chatham proposes extension of sewer system. Neces- r 
sary to coordinate planning with DPW roadway projects in 
involved areas. 



P. 7-39 Town of Sandwich proposes sewer system changes. Coordination 
with DPW is necessary. (see note for P. 7-14.) 



7 



P. 7-48 Town of Yarmouth proposed sewer extension system should be 6 
coordinated with DPW. 



75 




PAUL GUZZI 



^/er vf/asf/ o 



vr 



Uo. 



OM/HO//V 



■fa/// 



'///a.l4ac/f-/4e//i zyc/.i/os/ca/ v)o//i//i/3.i/o/i 
£S4 /4ai/u'/i<f/o/i <y//<ee/ 3oo.i/o/i, *sVCaMacA(/4e/& 0£/06 } 

JUL 1 3 1978 



MEMORANDUM 

TO: DEQE 208 Planning Staff 

Regional Planning Agencies 

FROM: Patricia L. Weslowskiy State Historic Preservation Officer 

DATE: July 12, 1978 

RE: Final 208 Water Quality Management Plan 



NHC would like to take this opportunity in commenting on the Final 
EIS for the 208 water quality management plans to remind EPA, DEQE, 
and the Massachusetts Regional Planning Agencies of their 
responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act of 
1966 and E011593 to protect historic resources which might be 
threatened from federal undertakings. This protection extends to 
both properties listed in and eligible for listing in the National 
Register of Historic Places. 

As the 208 plans are implemented and construction is planned, it may 
be necessary to survey the area of any proposed action in order to 
determine if NR listed or eligible properties might be affected. If 
properties might be affected, the procedures of the Advisory Council 
on Historic Preservation must be implemented (36 CFR 800) in order 
to protect historic resources. 

W£ is available to provide information on historic and archaeological 
properties in the state, and can help develop appropriate scopes of 
work for field surveys. We should also be consulted during the process 
of Advisory Council review. 

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call. 



76 






- . * • • 



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE 

1+77 Main Street, Yarmouth Port, Ma. 02675 Telephone: 362-9332 



Subject - Soils of Cape Cod - Comments 

To: Sylvia Daniels - Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission 

From - Richard J. DeVergilio - Soil Conservation Service 

Dear Sylvia; 

The following are comments regarding the 'Soil' section of which you wished 
be reviewed. 

1. You may wish to add this statement 'There are areas on the Cape where 
there is consolidated glacial till referred to as fragipan by Soil Scientists. 

2. The General Soils Map used in preparing the "Pilgrim Report 1975" evidently 
was an old one. Some soils are mentioned in the report that have not been 

on the Barnstable County Soils Legend for some time. It is recommended 2 

the paragraph on the General soils associations be omitted. 

3. Second paragraph. These kettle hole depressions tend to be wet much of 

the year, with the higher surrounding sands being well drained and excessively 5 
drained. 



k. Third paragraph - The remainder of the Cape is characterized by coarse sands, 

some tidal marsh, peat areas and occasional slowly permeable glacial till. 4 

The more complex till areas are found in a strip running from eastern Falmouth 
North towards Sandwich and then extending easterly through Dennis and into 
Brewster. 



. 



77 



A 





DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

AREA OFFICE 
BULFINCH BUILDING, 15 NEW CHARDON STREET 

REGION I BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02114 

Room 800 
hn F. Kennedy Federal Building 
Boston, Massachusetts 02203 IN reply REFER TO- 

JW- 10 1978 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Environmental and Economic Impact Office *e?fo 

John F. Kennedy Federal Building Hm 2203 \^ 

Boston, Massachusetts 02203 J^" 

Attn: Robert Mendoza 

Subjects Draft Environmental Impact Statement 
Water Quality Management Plan 
Cape Cod 

The DEIS for a Water Quality Management Plan for Cape Cod that 
was submitted to the Regional Office of HUD has been referred 
to the Boston Area Office for review and comment. 

Review of the DEIS indicates that the proposed action for a 
"Water Quality Management Plan" is tailored to the individual 
community needs whereby the residents of the community can deal 
with the problem on an individual basis. It also appears that 
growth of the communities will continue regardless of the im- 
provements made to the water quality. However, it should be 
kept in mind that the Capes' sole source of water is from its 
underground aquifer which the communities must protect in order 
to meet its demands and maintain its status quo. 

Regionalization of a water authority for the area appears to be 
a logical solution to the solving of supply and waste water prob- 
lems, maintainence and also insuring that future development does ]_ 
not jeopardize the quality of water resources. 

With a good water quality management plan, it is expected that 
the quality of the human environment in the Cape Cod Area and its 
environs will be protected for those now in the area and for 
future generations to come. 

Thank you for the opportunity given to this office for review 
and comment on this above proposal. 



-art 4=£W^ H/C 

Area Office Manager 





78 




United States Department of the Interior 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

Northeast Region 
15 State Street 
Boston, Massachusetts 02109 



JUU V 



ER-78/465 



July 10, 1978 



U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
Environmental and Economic Impact Office 
John F. Kennedy Federal Building - Room 2203 
3oston, Massachusetts 02203 
Attention: Robert E. Mendoza 

Dear Mr. Mendoza: 

We have reviewed the draft water-quality management plan and 
environmental statement for Cape Cod as requested in the 
letter of May 19 from Mr. Adams. 

GENERAL COMMENT 

The draft statement and management plan are commendable for 
the thoroughness of the analysis of ground-water impacts and 
for t-he proposals for necessary studies and mitigation. 

SPECIFIC COMMENTS 

Page 4-96: We suggest that areal consideration for sewerage 
systems--regardless of lot size being considered--should be 
accompanied by stipulations as to spacing between wells and 
points of release of sewage effluent. The statement recom- 
mends that private wells be discarded if the average lot size 
is less than 1 acre (table 4.13, p. 4-98). Thus, it appears 
that further concentrations of withdrawals through central 
water-supply systems could result; the statement should eval- 
uate at least in qualitative terms (pending the availability 
of the hydrologic models) any possibility of related increases 
in the potential for saltwater encroachment. This discussion 
of the relation between effective recharge area and well- 
screen setting (p. A-44) would be strengthened by inclusion 
of at least one representative log which would indicate the 
typical aquifer thickness and degree of vertical heteroge- 
neity implied in discussing the effects of screen settings 
near the bottom of the aquifer. 



1 



JUL 



m 



79 



Page 5-12: Construction is described as very important to 
the Cape Cod economy. Availability of aggregate raw materials 
is critical to construction activity and should be so recog- 
nized. Present and future self-sufficiency of Cape Cod in 
respect to construction aggregates might have been an appro- 
priate subject for discussion. If local supplies are zoned 
or regulated out of use, increased truck haulage, its attend- 
ant air and noise pollution, and road safety hazards may 
result. 

Page 5-22: Sand and gravel excavations are cited as a cause 
of erosion and sedimentation on Cape Cod. The report should 
note that it is standard practice to design sand and gravel 
excavations so that they have inward drainage. Thus, any 
material eroded is deposited in the pit bottom. It should 
also be pointed out that in New England most sand and gravel 
pits receive rapid subsequent use. They are reclaimed and 
are not left derelict or abandoned. Although it is recognized 
that sand and gravel pits are located in nearly every Cape 
town, it is stated that sand and gravel operations remove the 
natural soil and vegetation that provide a filter for water 
entering the ground. It should also be recognized that re- 
moving the surficial crust may increase permeability and 
aquifer recharge while lessening runoff. 

Page 5-42: It is stated that sand and gravel operations 
should only be permitted to a depth of four feet above mean 
groundwater elevation. This seems unduly restrictive since 
one way of looking at a sand and gravel pit full of water is 
that it is an artificial "Kettle Hole Pond." These ponds 
seem to be highly valued in the report. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

Sincerely, 

Environmental Officer 



80 




United States Department of the Interior 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

Northeast Region f)CT 1 8 W9 

15 State Street 
Boston, Massachusetts 02109 
L-7619 
ER-78/465 October 18, 1978 



U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
Environmental and Economic Impact Office 
John F. Kennedy Federal Building - Room 2203 
Boston, Massachusetts 02203 
Attn: Robert E. Mendoza 

Dear Mr. Mendoza: 

As a result of our recent discussions with you concerning the Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement and 208 Water Quality Management Plan 
for Cape Cod we submit the following comments bearing specific concerns 
of the National Park Service as supplemental to our Departmental 
commentary letter of July 10, 1978. 

It is highly commendable that your agency chose to submit this planning 
effort to the NEPA process. Whatever the benefits derived from your 
public participation process, this decision is sure to add compre- 
hensiveness and understanding which the planning effort would not 
likely have achieved otherwise. We strongly support your intention 
to continue through the final environmental statement stage of this 
process . 

GENERAL COMMENTS 

The role and Congressionally mandated purpose of the Cape Cod National 
Seashore is not adequately presented. There is no indication in the 
review document that Public Law 87-126 (Seashore Authorization) set 
aside this area in the National interest for the preservation of its 
unique flora, fauna and physiographic setting. Though it may not 
have been foreseen at the time, this decision - and its implementation - 
have cast the National Park Service in the role of a major participant 
and concerned party in many land and water resource questions on the 
Cape. The Secretary of the Interior has delegated to the National 
Park Service the authority to administer the Seashore for these 
purposes and no reference to this has been found either. 

The major reference to the Seashore in the document has been in the 
context of it providing sites for municipal water supplies to meet 
the increasing growth-related water supply needs of several Cape 




'^6-191* e 81 



cxatmunities . Obviously, this falls so far short of describing the 
Seashore's real purpose as to distort the facts and to be quite mis- 
leading to all interested parties. 

The principal responsibility of the National Park Service is to 
preserve a part of Cape Cod's natural ecosystems. It has very few 
options open to it in regard to meeting municipal water supply 
needs. (P.L. 91-383 referenced below) Even these few options are 
seriously constrained by its primary obligation to preserve existing 
ecosystems. Should there arise a future situation where a conflict 
between these interests develops, the Service would have no choice in 
determining its position. The Congressional mandates would govern. 

The Department of the Interior sees no reason why such a situation 
should ever develop. Where the 208 planning process addresses 
wastewater disposal issues, we support a commensurate and regional 
approach to water supply questions. A position could be taken that 
such an inquiry is not within the purview of a 208 effort. However, 
certain factors are in effect which argue otherwise. Principal among 
these is the definite possibility that the Cape or large portions 
of it are being considered for a "sole source aquifer" designation. 
This establishes a concrete relationship between the supply and 
disposal aspects of the water resource situation. Given such a 
singular relationship, it would appear illogical to address only one 
aspect, i.e. disposal, of the total concern. To the extent that 
such an approach is adopted, its conclusions and recommendations 
could be regarded as correspondingly questionable or even invalid. 

It is not this Department's desire to advocate supplementary 208 
efforts which are beyond the scope or authority of that program. 
However, we do hold that both the plan and its environmental impact 
statement will be seriously lacking in adequacy until they are revised 2 
to reflect more fully the above noted points. While this will not 
remedy what we regard as deficiencies, it will serve to formally 
acknowledge them and set the stage for remedial actions through 
other mechanisms such as regional comprehensive planning. 

SUPPORTIVE INF0PMA.TI.0N 

Even though the Seashore's resources have been set aside by legislation 
for future generations, pressures for removal of those resources are 
now evident and are likely to increase in the future. Recent plans 
and requests have been made for development of municipal water supplies 
within the Seashore, as, for example, those cited in this Draft 208 
Water Quality Management Plan. The National Park Service policy on 



82 



development of water supplies within park boundaries can be expressed 
as follows: 

Public Law 91-383 is the only authority which would allow 
sale of park water, and an important requirement of this 
law is that there must be no feasible alternative. Further, 
"it should be emphasized that while Public Law 91-383 condi- 
tionally allows the Secretary of Interior to authorize the 
sale of services, resources, or park water, the Secretary's 
primary commitment, as mandated by the Congress, is the 
preservation and protection of National Park System resources 
and related dependent environment. In this regard, Service 
management policy limits water development and use, assuming 
no adverse impact on the natural environment, to the 
irunimum required to meet visitor and employee water needs. 
In essence, water is a vital part of the park environment and 
a natural resource the Service is committed to protect 
and in reality cannot be excess or wasted water, as viewed 
by some applicants." (Special Directive 78-2, NPS) 

The freshwater lens contained in the unconsolidated deposits forms 
the principal aquifer on Cape Cod and there exists a definite limi- 
tation in the quantity of water which can be extracted from the lens 
without damage to the Cape ecosystem. On the lower Cape, the National 
Seashore, because it encompasses a large portion of the recharge areas 
of the freshwater lenses in the Towns of Provincetown, Truro, and 
Wellfleet, will fill the vital role of watershed protection for these 
towns, particularly in regard to the quantity and quality of their 
common groundwater resources. This water, which can be obtained from 
under their own lands, is not limitless nor will it provide for 
unlimited development. However, within the sustainable capacity of 
the lens system the Towns have the opportunity for the wise husbandry 
of the water which flows to them as part of the natural hydrologic 
cycle. Problematically, the capacity is not equally distributed among 
townships, nor is it distributed in a manner compatible with certain 
recent growth patterns; the National Park Service cannot be placed 
in the position of broker to redistribute resources among the Towns. 
Nor can the Service endorse any plan or activity which invites over- 
exploitation of the capacity of the freshwater lens system, which 
would lead to violation of the Service's mandate for ecosystem 
(especially wetlands) protection. 

Of particular concern to the Service is the probable effects of 
heavy water supply demands during serious or extended periods of 
drought. Worst case situations would very likely cause permanent 
ruin to the ecosystems that now support the significant resource 
values of Cape Cod. 



83 



The National Park Service therefore would endorse regional or Cape- 
wide solutions to water supply problems which are developed by the 
Towns commensurate with the scope of waste water disposal considered 
in the 208 Water Quality Plan. The Towns working together with the 
cooperation of the National Park Service, all of whom must bear care- 
ful concern for their respective interests and responsibilities, 
can best achieve an equitable solution for sharing the limited re- 
sources particularly in the lower area of the Cape. 

SPECIFIC COMMENTS 

1. Cape Cod National Seashore should be delineated on Map 5.2 and 3 
indicated, perhaps as a large scale ccmTiitment to open land on 

Map 2.3. If the values for Reserved Open Space in Table 2.6 include h 
Cape Cod National Seashore areas, some indication of this should be 
given. Recognition that the Gull Pond study is being carried out by 
the National Park Service with the assistance of United States 
Geological Survey might also be given. National Seashore lands should c 
be shown on Map 5.6 (potential water supply) to indicate the juris- 
dictional constraint against securing water from within the Seashore. 

2. Growth Projections 

The Assessment and Analysis discussion (5-2 through 5-14) seems to 
clearly recognize the need for growth management and goes into 
considerable depth on summer and winter population projections and 
their effects on the economy. The impacts as expressed on the building 
construction industry indicate no adversity — in fact it is stated that 
the industry would be stable through the 20 year life of this 208 plan. 
We feel this section should present greater guidance for growth manage- 
ment or at least reference should be made to other sections of the 208 
wherein growth management and capacity determinations are given 
detailed consideration. 

We also recommend that this greater guidance encompass an appraisal r 
of the environmental price attached to each level of this long-term 
incremental growth. 

3. The effects of present and the projected increases in non-point 
sources are not realistically treated. Section S-8 recognizes 
that on-site systems (cesspools and septic tanks) are major sources 

of pollution on the Cape. The on-site system management program relies 
heavily on proper design and on proper septic tank management. Such 7 
management seems to incorporate mainly a suggestion for occasional 
pumping. The resultant pumped septage is placed in beds or landfills 
(S-7) which are particularly intense non-point sources of pollution 
(S-8) . Water quality is being "managed" to accommodate new land use 
rather than the reverse. 



84 



4. Control of non-point source impacts on ponds (S-9) . It is widely 
recognized that the application of herbicides is a cosmetic and 

often fruitless attempt to treat the symptoms of the improper land o 
use which accelerates the rate of introduction of nutrients into such 
ponds. The real extent of the perturbations on the phytoplankton, 
zooplankton and literal benthos is not known. The 208 plan should 
state and emphasize these concerns to protect the quality of the 
Cape's natural resources. 

Some discussion of the potential effects of air pollution on the pH 
of rain (as in acid rain) on water quality should be given under air 
quality, or under non-point source pollution (cf . 2-18) . 

The study results indicating oxygen depletions in only 18 of 156 
ponds may only reflect sampling procedure (3-38) . Most ponds over 
7-9 m stratify over the summer, and because most of them have a 
glacial origin, their hypolimnia have a rather small volume in relation 
to their total volume. These factors plus that of cultural eutro- 
phication will probably be reflected in oxygen depletion in many ponds 
on the Cape. In the Seashore ponds, five of the six ponds over 7 m depth 
show oxygen depletions. Profiles must be made over the deeper area 
of the pond in order to detect the depletion, however, and in many 
ponds the deepest points are not centrally nor easily located. 

5. Effects of groundwater extraction on the freshwater - saltwater q 
transition zone (and on the edges of the lens) are not adequately 
treated. The important point is made that municipal water supply 
pumping reduces the amount of groundwater flow (2-7) but no clari- 
fication is given of the widely held misconception that, as long 

as the rates of pumping do not exceed total annual recharge for 
an area, no change in the freshwater lens occurs. A clear discussion 
of the changes in all dimensions of the lens, which accompanies well 
discharge should be given in any discussion of water supply planning. 

SUMMARY COMMENTS 

Cape Cod stands as a unique situation in terms of the relationship 
between water supply and wastewater disposal. That characteristic 
is heightened by the Department of the Interior having direct admin- 
istrative jurisdiction over critical portions of the water resource. 
A further complication arises from the necessity of the Seashore to 
regard the resource in one context (ecosystem preservation) while 
local jurisdictions view it in another (economic stability and growth) . 

To the degree that these considerations and relationships are not 
equally emphasized with other concerns, the environmental impact 



85 



statement falls short of what it is intended to accomplish. Recognizing 
that the 208 program lacks authority to address such issues, we do 
not ask that their resolution be documented in this statement. However, 
it is reasonable to request that the final environmental statement 
evidence equal concern for these questions and document that continued 
lack of attention to them will almost certainly create serious future ]Q 
problems . 

We appreciate your consideration of the above General and Specific 
Comments. The Park Service's recent experiences in having to provide 
emergency municipal water supply needs and renewed awareness of the 
208 planning work for Cape Cod compelled the forwarding of these 
concerns in hopes that the best guidance for water quality manage- 
ment will be established. 

Sincerely, 



Regional Environmental Officer 



86 



I Z AJ.^. £* ee.Lrhu^e Park 



JUN > 

j UN 19 1973 Tele: C*17) 273-7310 



U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
Environmental & Economic Impact Office 
John F. Kennedy Federal Building Room 2203 
Boeotn* MA 02203 
Attention: Mr. Robert E, ?iendoza 



Dear ?tr. Mendoae: 

We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the 
Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission Section 208 
Water Quality Management Plan and have a fev comments regarding it. 

Our principal concern with vater quality management projects ia the 
posalhility of unwise residential development near airports as a result 
of sewer extensions. This can be avoided with adequate land-use con- 
trols . 

Unlike other 208 plans that we have reviewed, this one is not specific 
with regard to infrastructure investment and its effect on airport 
vicinity land use. Specific recoBjaendatlona follow. 

Barnstable. Airport land-use compatibility should be included if 

sewering is proposed for category 2 and 3 areas in the airport vicinity. i 

Chatham. Extension of sewer lines along Main Street may precipitate 
development of residential use that would increase airport noise com- 2 
plaints unless land-use controls are properly administered. 

Faljaouth. The town policy and planning agency should decide on future v 
plans for the airport for inclusion in future land-use development. ■* 

Mashpee. Septage planning should Include protection from incompatible §, 
land -use in the vicinity of Otis Air Force Base. 

^^A l M ce _ t - . w °* -Location of any new landfill siting at the airport 5 
should be avoided if possible. 

Thank you for the opportunity to review this water quality management 
plan for any impact on aviation activities. 

Sincerely 

C ' ■- ! ~. :1 ■'"?:-•; by..L 
EA.iJ k- liIJKAtfB 

DAVID L. RICKARD, ACTIJH? CHIEF 

Planning & Appraisal Staff C c: Ms. Sylvia Daniels^ 



87 



AEQ-1 

TES-70 

SECREP 



208 Staff 
Responses 



Juliet Bernstein 
July 24, 1978 

1. You are correct. See Appendix A. 

2. While this laundry is noted on p. 7-14 as a suspected source of 
pollution in Frostfish Creek, water quality testing information has 
not definitely established the laundry as the source. It is suggested 
on p 3-12 that the town continue its efforts to determine the source 

of pollution in this area. 

3. Further information on the cause of the loading and the source of 
nutrients would be necessary before a corrective program could be 
instituted. 

4. A sanitary survey of the area would be necessary to determine which 
systems are discharging, if any. Use of dye tests would be helpful. 
Following replacement of failing cesspools or septic tanks, a maintenance 
pumping program would be quite effective in eliminating recurrance of 
the problem. Other sources, such as road runoff and wildfowl popu- 
lations would also have to be investigated, and appropriate control 
measures developed. 

5. See "Road Salt Application £ Storage" in final plan. 

6. See "Water Conservation" in final plan. 

7. See "Water Conservation" in final plan. 

Basil Edwards 
July, 1978 

1. See "Draft Plan Errata Sheet," Appendix A. 

William E. Holland 
June 27, 1978 

1. See "Road Salt Storage § Application" in the final plan. 

2. See "On-site System Management" in the final plan. 

3. Some information on small packaged systems may be obtained in the 
coming year of the continuing 208 program. A survey of the condition 
and operation of the existing package treatment plants in the area should 
yield information on their performance and necessary management arrange- 
ments . 

4. Information on financing of individual septic systems is being 
collected by CCPEDC staff. See "On-site System Management" in final plan 

5. It is hoped that a cooperative program with the USGS can accomplish 
this. 



88 



6. Until the DWPC and EPA establish a policy of regulating stormwater 
runoff under the NPDES permit process, it appears that local conserva- 
tion commissions have the greatest authority in this area. See 
"Stormwater Runoff from Urbanized Areas and Construction-Related 
Activities" in the final plan. 

Andrew Kamarck 
June 1, 1978 

1. See "Water Conservation" in the final plan. 

2. See "On-site System Management" in the final plan. 

3. Peak summer population is defined on p. 2-13. It is also defined 

on both Table 2.5 and Table 5.1 that deal with summer population. Since 
peak wastewater flows are needed to calculate the capacity needed for 
any proposed sewage treatment facility, it is believed that this method 
of calculating peak summer population is appropriate to the purposes 
of this report. Other calculations of facilities needs can also be 
calculated from these figures. 

John A. Moser 
July 13, 1978 

General: Mr. Moser has pointed out several typographical and editorial 
errors which were overlooked under the pressure to meet a publication 
deadline. Most of the "definitions" used were taken from USGS and EPA 
publications and do not require further explanation here. 

1. The seasonal fluctuations may affect dispersion patterns, resulting 
in "slug" formation within the "plume." Some plants actually draw from 
the groundwater, particularly in areas of high water table and lowlying 
coastal sections. Evaporation is this more than the interception of 
recharge. If the water table were lowered beyond normal seasonal levels, 
some lowering of evapotranspiration would take place. The intent of the 
loading formula is to estimate regionalized loading, as might affect a 
large withdrawal well. 

2. See revised table in "Draft Plan Errata Sheet" Appendix A. 

3. We have chosen and defined the term "recharge area" for our purposes 
to be synonymous with the area of contribution of a well. We agree that 
this is not technically correct, but felt it would be easier for the lay- 
man to understand. 

4. We hope that by providing technical assistance to the towns in 
implementing these recommendations, we will be able to inform officials 
and citizens of the limitations of this approach. However, we do 
believe it is the most feasible approach and will contribute greatly to 
the protection of public water supply wells. 

Thomas J. Mullen 
July 19, 1978 

See "Management Agencies" in the final plan. 

89 



Harry Schroeder 
June 1, 1978 

See "Water Conservation" section in final plan. 

Esther A. Snyder/APCC 
July 14, 1978 

1. The draft plan attempted to supply as much of the basic theory 
and underlying assumptions used in developing the "recharge areas" 
concept as could be assimilated by the public and accommodated in a 
report that was required to be of limited length. It was stated in 
the draft plan, however, that technical assistance to the towns will 
probably be necessary in applying these principles. An implementation 
project has been prepared to provide this assistance. 

The term "recharge area" was chosen to facilitate public understanding 
of the concept upon which the water supply protection areas recommendations 
were based. That is, as described in your comments, an area within 
which natural recharge from precipitation would equal the amount with- 
drawn by the well, on an annual basis. 

The exact location of the surface and subsurface areas contributing 
recharge to a given well, more accurately referred to as the "area 
of contribution," could be identified for a given point in time only by 
obtaining far more detailed geo-hydrologic information than is presently 
available. The area will change with variation in any of the factors, 
such as change in withdrawal rate, precipitation, or the development 
of new withdrawal wells or wastewater discharges resulting in alterations 
of the water table in the vicinity of the wellfield and subject to 
fluctuation, as are the water table, the saltwater interface or the 
groundwater divide. 

While a more conservative approach might be to assume drought rather 
than average recharge conditions, the 208 approach compensates by using 
the average daily withdrawal rate during the peak 90-day period rather 
than an annual withdrawal rate. 

It must be understood that the 208 formula is a method of estimation 
only. It is hoped that experience in applying the formula and the con- 
tinued accumulation of hydrologic information in the ongoing planning 
program will result in the refinement of the method. See p. 2-69 of 
"Water Supply Protection." 

2. The "reflux" formula mentioned in Chapter 3 takes into consideration 
the increase in concentration of constituents resulting from recycling 
of wastes within the withdrawal area. It is assumed in that formula 
that an equilibrium would be reached; however, it is extremely unlikely 
that a situation in which total recapture would occur is likely on Cape 
Cod within the foreseeable future. 

A diagram of water flow lines was prepared by Kerfoot (EMI 1976) 
utilizing what is now an outdated water table map. A correct diagram 
can be prepared by the layman by drawing flow lines perpendicular to 
groundwater contour lines shown on Map 2.2. 

90 



Esther A. Snyder/APCC (cont.) 

LINE BY LINE COMMENTS. Please see Appendix A of final plan for cor- 
rections to Chapter 3. 

James T.B. Tripp/Environmental Defense Fund 
August 11, 1978 

See "Land Use Controls" section of final plan. 

Virginia Valiela 
July 8, 1978 

1. Unfortunately the technology for recovering and treating wastewater 
plumes in not very highly developed. The nature and extent of the plume 
would have to be determined before any plan for abatement can be con- 
sidered. 

Please see recommendation on use of private wells for agricultural 
irrigation. 

2. The nitrate loading referred to in p. 3-22 of the draft plan assumes 
removal of solids and the associated nitrogen. by the septic tank. Page 
3-49 deals with loading by a raw sewage discharge, which would include 
the nitrogen in the solids; hence', the higher nitrate concentration. 

Barnstable Board of Health 
June 21, 1978 

1. The cost discussions in the draft plan, Chapter 4, alternatives 
section, are intended to demonstrate that the recommended preventive 
program is far less costly than "No Action," which will in many cases 
result in the need for sewering and water treatment. Mr. Kelly's 

own town has experienced the cost impact of sewering in its recent con- 
struction program. 

2. See revised Barnstable Profile in final plan. 

3. Planning agencies do not retain experts for the purpose of providing 
testimony in law suits. This would be extremely costly and probably out- 
side of their authority and responsibilities. In addition it may result 
in serious problems of conflict of interest. The professionals and pub- 
lications upon which the plan's recommendations are based are available 
to the towns. We will make every effort to assist them in defending 
actions based on our recommendations. 

4. The implementation project proposed by CCPEDC to perform a pilot 
on-site system inspection program will answer some of these questions. 
It is hoped that voluntary cooperation of most homeowners will be ob- 
tained through an active public education program. 

Regarding the voting of Proposition 13: First, on-site system mainten- 
ance is far less costly than sewering. Second, whatever management scheme 
is adopted, it will be funded primarily by user charges, not property 
taxes. Does Mr. Kelly have any information indicating there is a rela- 
tionship between voters approving Proposition 13 and towns adopting an 
on-site system management program in California. 

91 



5. As discussed in draft Chapter 4, and as we have discussed with Mr. 
Kelly on several occasions, use of an overflow is not as effective as 
installation of a tank and pit. Water quality samples taken under the 
"clogged" cesspool used in such an overflow arrangement in the Long 
Island Water Pollution Study revealed considerable leaching of pollution 
from the cesspool. 

5. It is hoped that continuing 208 funds will be available to provide 
such educational materials to cooperating towns, and to make them 
available as models to the entire Cape Cod region. As a planning 
program, the 208 program was limited in its funds for educational pro- 
grams . 

7. The "communal septic tanks systems" referred to in Chapter 4 are not 
the package aerobic tanks referred to in the studies quoted. The draft 
plan recommended package systems with serious reservations, and recommends 
that no such systems should be installed unless adequate operation and 
maintenance is provided. It is also recommended that all systems ser- 
ving more than one user would be owned and operated by the municipalities 
to provide cost-effective areas and accountability of centralized man- 
agement. 

8. The plan incorporates existing sewering phases only. It provides 
for non- structural measures to be taken to prevent future development 
of sewer needs. If the towns does not take such preventive measures, 
it will not be eligible for any future funds for sewer construction. 

9. The 208 plan provides considerable information to establish that 
on-site system management and Title 5 enforcement represent the least 
costly solutions to waste water management. Public participation to date 
indicates that this has been recognized by the local interests. 

10. The plan states that this authority should be invoked when it is 
established that vessel discharges are the causative factor. Further 
analysis of available data, and possibly further data collection are 
necessary to make such a determination. The Division of Water Pollution 
Control, however, has stated its position that until the enforcement of 
MSD regulations has been shown to be ineffective it will not enforce 
this requirement. It is for this reason that the draft plan recommends 
that towns may wish to exercise their own powers in the situation rather 
than to wait for state action. 

11. The 208 staff are investigating this suggestion. It is hoped 
that additional recommendations for the proper maintenance of commer- 
cially used septic tank systems can be developed in the continuing 208 
program. 

12. The 201 plan clearly recommends that innovative systems should not 
be used in new construction on sites where a standard septic tank sys- 
tem could not be installed. 

13. See "Septage Facilities Needs" in final plan. 



92 



Barnstable Board of Health (cont.) 

14. The meeting referred to was only an exploratory discussion to 
determine if any towns were interested. A number of towns have since 
indicated interest in cooperating and CCPEDC is pursuing the possibil- 
ity of USGS assistance and expects to have more concrete data on othe 
method to be employed upon completion of the USGS study of the Otis 
sand filterbeds plume. 

15. As mentioned by Mr. Kelly above, we feel it is not wise to depend 
upon innovative systems which are at present in the experimental stages. 
Desalinization of brackish water may be more feasible by the reverse 
osmosis process now than in the past; however, we feel it is only to 

be considered as a corrective measure to deal with existing problems 
and should not be a replacement for preventive measures. It must be 
recognized that desalinization is energy intensive and is, therefore, 
not a preferred alternative. 

16. See revised management recommendations. The problem with relying 
solely on the County sanitarians for on-site systems management is that 
they are on call to the 15 towns and have 20 or more functions to per- 
form, in addition to on-site system management. The 208 plan calls for 
a comprehensive on-site system management program which may not be 
effectively implemented by a town relying on case-by-case assistance 
from the County. As stated in the response to Ms. Howes, if the County 
can commit a sanitarian to work regularly with a town for the amount of 
time required to carry out the 208 recommendations, this would be con- 
sidered acceptable implementation. We disagree that implementation of 
the 208 recommendation that each town have a qualified health agent 
would take away the work of the County sanitarians for all of the above 
reasons . 

17. The existing County Health Department staff provides services and 
technical assistance to the towns in implementation of 20 or more health 
functions. They perform bacteriological testing, and, if a chemist is 
added, will perform certain chemical monitoring services as well. 

The multi-208 program, on the other hand, is a comprehensive water 
quality management process which extends beyond the field of health 
services. The CCPEDC was designated by the Governor of the Commonwealth 
to prepare this comprehensive water quality management plan, and is the 
recommendation of the plan that the CCPEDC be designated for ongoing 
planning and coordination activities. The existing staff of the health 
department does not include the personnel necessary to carry out such a 
program. 

Barnstable Conservation Commission 
June 9, 1978 

1. See "Land Use Controls" in the final plan. 

2. See "Sjtormwater Runoff" in the final plan. 



93 



Chatham Board of Selectmen 
July 14, 1978 

Appendix A 

1, 2, 3. The "Wastewater Management Problem Area Map - 4.1" will be 
updated in the continuing 208 program. Since Chatham plans to be in- 
volved in a detailed 201 Facilities Plan beginning in 1979, the towns' s 
consultants will have the opportunity to further examine these areas 
to determine whether these areas should be reclassified. Based on the 
information furnished by the proposed 201 Facilities Plan, further re- 
visions to this map will be made. 

4. See "On-site System Management" in the final plan. 

Appendix B 

It is suggested that Chatham proceed with its current intent to apply 
for a grant form EPA to conduct a 201 Facilities Plan. It is recog- 
nized that the Chatham sewage treatment plant is presently utilizing 
only a small portion of its capacity causing operational problems. The 
extension of the sewerage system, to be eligible for 201 design and 
construction funds (Steps 2 § 3), must include only those areas in which 
a need existed in October 18, 1972. (PL 92-500). All other areas that 
have developed into problem areas since 1972 or which the town anticipates 
will be problems in the future may be provided with sewerage at the 
town's expense. In evaluating such recent or future problem areas, the 
town should consider both the cost-effectiveness and the environmental 
impacts of a sewered solution for these areas. The 208 planning staff 
will be available to assist the town and its consultant throughout its 
upcoming preparation of a 201 Plan of Study and in the facilities 
planning process. 

5. While this type of information is valuable in determining whether 
high density is advisable in specific areas, it is not particularly 
relevant to the delineation of public water supply development areas. 
Zoning changes within these areas are based on nitrate loading calcu- 
lations presented on pp. 3-20 to 3-22 of the draft plan. 

6. See Appendix A of the final plan. (make change noted on p. 7-15 
last sentence of paragraph 1, the word "favorable" should be changed 
to "foreseeable.") 

7. It is the intent of the on-site system management program to accom- 
plish this goal of prevention. The upgrading on-site systems is eligible 
for funding assistance as part of a 201 Facilities Plan. (See p. 2-47) 

Appendix C 

1. That is correct. 

2. This is understood. 



94 



3. This table only provides pumping data on the public water supplies 
and does not include total pumping of both public and private wells 
for any of the towns. 

4. That is correct. 

5. That is correct. 

Barnstable County Health Department 
Stetson Hall 
July 19, 19 78 

1. A meeting was held on August 8, 1978 between staff and Directors 
of the County Health Department and the CCPEDC to discuss the proposed 
monitoring program. 

CCPEDC staff explained that it is not the intention of the 208 recommen- 
dations to divide the administration of either agencies' staff activities, 
The intent is rather for CCPEDC to coordinate the monitoring activities 
of the health department with the many other state and federal water 
programs operating in the Cape Cod region so that the best use of data 
can be achieved and duplication of effort avoided. 

The CCPEDC staff explained at that meeting that the execution of a 
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the two agencies would provide 
such coordination. As part of the MOU a work program for a private well 
testing program would be jointly developed, based on the staff, finan- 
cial and laboratory resources of the County Health Department. Speci- 
fically, the inclusion of the chemical monitoring activities for the 
first year of implementation would be based on County Health's being 
able to find a qualified chemist under CETA funding, and for an ongoing 
program, on the health department's successfully establishing a position 
in its department for the chemist. 

The administration of monitoring activities performed by the County 
Health Department under such an arrangement would remain under the County 
Health Officer, and would not be divided, as indicated by Mr. Hall. 

2. The "two or three planners" referred to by Mr. Hall to be placed 

in the CCPEDC would not be involved in administering the County Health's 
monitoring efforts. They would assist in the development of the chem- 
ist's work program as a very small part of their responsibilities. They 
would perform the coordinative functions referred to above, assist towns 
in implementing watershed protection measures, update the 208 plan, work 
on wastewater management problems by providing technical assistance to 
towns. The proposed staff and their activities would not overlap in 
qualifications or activities with the County Health staff. 

3. The CCPEDC has actively supported the creation of the chemist posi- 
tion in the County Health Department, and has pledged its continuing 
support . 



95 



Barnstable County Health Department 
Esther G. Howes 
July 19, 1978 

1. It is the intention that the chemist be employed by the County Health 
Department. The staff salary recommended is based on a figure provided 
by County Health personnel. 

2. The County Health Department has an important role in the planning 
and implementation of certain aspects of the comprehensive monitoring 
program as recommended in the "Water Quality Assessment" section of the 
draft plan. 

3. In further discussion, County Health Department personnel agree that 
professional health agents should be available to all towns to carry out 
those aspects of on-site system management program recommended. The 
County Health Department feels such additional personnel should be main- 
tained within their department and not on the local level. See "On-site 
System Management" in the final plan. 



STATE AGENCIES COMMENTS 

Coastal Zone Management 
August 7, 1978 

1. We agree further work on this subject needs to be done and will be 
examined in the continuing 208 program. 

2. It has been the view of the 208 program that the problem of oil 
spills is being adequately addressed in the efforts of the Coastal Zone 
Management Program at the present time. Further cooperation between CZM 
and the 208 program in the area would be desirable. 

3. See "Pond Management" discussion in final plan. 

4. See "Management Agencies" in final plan. 

5. See "Pond Management" and "Management Agencies" sections in the final 
plan. 

6. Staff is trying to obtain the Oldale Map for future use. 

7. See "Water Quality Assessment" section of the final plan. 

8. See "Vessel Discharges" section of final plan. 

9. See p. 4-8 in the draft plan which cites reference indicating that 
timing of percolation tests is also critical to resolve water table 
determination problems. 

10. USGS study for DEQE now underway is expected to resolve wat 
table determination problems. 

11. See "On-site System Management" in final plan. 



96 



12. Recommendation is made in draft plan, see "Water Quality Monitor- 
ing" section of final plan. 

13. A minimum setback of 100 ft. from a pond is recommended on p. 5-51 
and carried through to coastal embayments on p. 5-52. 

14. Such educational efforts will be an integral part of the continuing 
208 water quality program. 

15. See "Management Agencies" in final plan. 

16. See "Management Agencies" in final plan. 



Department of Community Affairs 
July 17, 1978 

1. A major recommendation of the draft plan is that homeowners main- 
tain their on-site systems to ensure properly functioning systems and 
to avoid the development of failing systems requiring expensive 
repairs or sewerage systems. This minimal expenditure of $20/year for 
such a maintenance program considers the needs, of low and moderate in- 
come homeowners. The recommendations of the draft plan would not add 
costs to construcion, but would save homeowner expenses in the long-run. 

2. The emphasis of the draft plan is on accommodating growth while 
protecting water quality. Not all land areas are equally suitable for 
future growth. The draft plan identifies those specific areas that 
must have limited growth to protect critical water resources (and thus 
ensure an adequate and clean water supply for future growth) and also 
indicates that areas with public water or sewer service outside of 
these areas may better accommodate future growth. 

3. Mr. Sawyer's disapproval of the Bourne Development Scheduling Bylaw 
seems completely inconsistent with his previous statement and the OSP's 
recognition of this technique in furthering the state's growth policy. 
The Bourne bylaw is a part of an overall program to eliminate wide 
variations in growth rates, protect environmental qualities and still 
broaden housing opportunities. (Other elements in Bourne's program 
include an "incentive bonus"--0pen Space Village provision allowing 
variety in housing types, including multi-family, in most districts.) 
See Appendix B for a revised version of the Bourne bylaw. 

4. The on-site system management program recommended for the majority 
of the Cape's homeowners is the most cost-effective protection of the 
Cape's water resources with the minimal impact on the Cape's economy. 
We are certainly aware of the impact of sewering costs on the property 
tax rate, and the avoidance of future sewer needs is a major emphasis 
of the draft plan and on-site system recommendations. There was not 
"a virtual disregard" for housing opportunities in the design of al- 
ternatives. It is suggested that towns consider encouraging growth in 
sewered areas and areas supplied by town water. 

5. The towns presently have authority to strengthen Title 5 by adopting 
regulations suitable to specific regional needs and support for exerciz- 
ing this home rule authority as suggested in the draft plan will continue 

97 



6. Section 9 of Chapter 40A authorizes a variety of applications for 
special permits, but has no language stating that no other uses of that 
device may be made, whether under statutory or home rule authority. 
The legislative history of Section 9 makes clear that the intent was 
to broaden use of the special permit device, not to eliminate previously 
common uses of it, such as the one in the "Model Public Water Supply 
Protection Area Bylaw." 



DEQE, Southea st Region 
July 21, 19 78" 

1. The County Health Department has too limited funds and staff re- 
sources to conduct all laboratory functions that would be desirable 
in the continuing 208 program. While County Health is willing to 
perform those functions feasible within its present limitations, Mr. 
Anderson's support for additional laboratory personnel in future budget 
requests would be most helpful. (Much of the comprehensive monitoring 
program could be carried out, however, i.e. pond surveillance, only 

by DWPC.) 

2. While DEQE approves the installation of all public water supply 
wells, its activities in long-term water supply planning are limited. 
The full use of the USGS model of the Cape's groundwater resources 
necessitates the accessibility of regional water supply management 
planning assistance. As noted in the "Mass. Water Supply Policy 
Statement" of May, 1978, EOEA recognizes the need to direct the Water 
Resources Commission to "Initiate state level responsibilities for 
broad long-range water supply planning, coordinating with regional 
planning agencies, and using defined watershed areas for analysis." 
The Policy Statement also recommends a program of matching grants to 
fund regional and local water supply studies. 

DEQE, Air 8, Hazardous Materials 

1. See "Management Agencies" in final plan. 

2. See "Management Agencies" in final plan. 

3. See "Draft Plan Errata Sheet." 

4. See legend explanation. 

5. "Solid Waste Management for Barnstable County" by C. E. Maguire, 
Inc., p. 111-6 projects a solid waste generation rate by 1995 of 6.8 
pounds/person/day or 2482 pounds/person/year. 

6. Carbon Chloroform Extract is discussed on p. 3-12. 



98 



Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 

Evelyn Murphy, Secretary 

July 21, 1978 

See "Water Conservation" in the final plan 



Massachusetts Department of Public Works 
July 12, 1978 

1. It is not anticipated that the 20 8 water quality management recom- 
mendations will have any significant impacts on transportation in 
Barnstable County. While construction of sewerage systems may induce 
a certain amount of added growth within the service areas, these areas 
are relatively small and any increased growth in these areas will not 
be significant in relation to the overall anticipated growth for the 
region and its potential impact on transportation. See p. 2-57 EIS 
(include transportation in chart) . 

2. The impacts on state highways of installing a sewerage system in 
the recommended sewer service areas would be of a short-term nature 
related to actual sewer construction. Such construction activities 
should be coordinated with the DPW where appropriate. 

3. See "Road Salt Storage and Application" for recommended state and 
specifically MDPW action to cooperate in the 208 water quality manage- 
ment program. Major highways have been included in reprints of the 
maps that will soon be completed as a separate publication. 

4. Same as #3. 

5. Same as #3. 

6. It is agreed that such coordination is needed. See "Sewer Con- 
struction Projects" in final plan. 

7. Same as #6. 

8. Same as #6. 



FEDERAL AGENCIES COMMENTS 

Department of Agriculture: Soil Conservation Service 
April 12, 1978 

1. See Appendix A of the final plan. 

2. See Appendix A of the final plan. 

3. Change does not appear to be necessary. 

4. See Appendix A of the final plan. 



99 



Department of Housing and Urban Development 
July 10, 1978 

1. See "Management Agencies" in final plan 



Department of the Interior 
July 10, 1978 

1. The recommendation to "discard private wells" in the table of 
technical alternatives was intended as an alternative for the abatement 
of identified water quality problems in private wells. It should not be 
taken as an across-the-board recommendation for existing private water 
supplies, although the land use recommendations do include zoning for 
one- acre lots in areas to be permanently served by private water sup- 
plies. 

These recommendations are intended to provide for the protection of 
water quality in the private wells, and do not bear upon the water 
quantity aspects of water supply and salt water intrusion. The poten- 
tial for saltwater encroachment is affected by both the manner of water 
withdrawal (private vs. public supply wells) and the means and location 
of wastewater treatment and disposal. The balance between the two is 
quantitatively described in the section on environmental impacts of 
wastewater management alternatives. 

2. The 208 draft plan does not recommend the prohibition of sand and 
gravel pits only the proper control of such pits to protect water 
quality. The control recommendations would not seriously affect the 
availability of aggregate materials on Cape Cod. It is also recognized 
that the availability of aggregate materials will become increasingly 
limited in the next 5-10 years. This is a major reason for the con- 
tinued need to retain rail freight service to Cape Cod. 

3. There are some sand and gravel pits on the Cape which have not been 
reclaimed and it is anticipated as many of the pits now in use become 
exhausted, this will be an increasing problem. 

4. While removing the surficial crust may increase permeability, com- 
pactions from heavy equipment may negate this as a benefit. 

5. The water quality problems caused by sand and gravel operations 
include exposing the water table to increased air pollution and poten- 
tial gasoline spills from the equipment used in excavation. Soil 
erosion can be caused not only by runoff from the areas but also from 
wind removing soil from the exposed surface. It is unlikely that a 
kettle hole pond would form in such a permeable area unless the site 
were excavated below water table which would be undesirable due to in- 
creased water loss from evaporation. 



100 



Department of the Interior 
October 18, 1978 

1. The role of the National Park in preserving open space was re- 
flected in all population projections and land use maps. While the 
208 plan does not specifically delineate the purposes of the National 
Park, this omission was certainly not intended to imply that the Park 
was created for the purpose of providing water supplies to the lower 
Cape towns. The water supply discussion in this final plan has been 
substantially revised and reflects the Park policy in this matter. 

2. It is difficult to understand how the reviewer could reach the 
conclusion that the draft 208 plan has only a wastewater disposal 
approach to water resource protection. The main thrust of the entire 
plan is the coordination of water supply protection and wastewater 
management. Perhaps the reviewer did not read the "Management Pro- 
gram" section of Chapter 5 which deals with this important relation- 
ship. The final plan provides even greater detail in the area of 
water supply planning and protection in the "Water Supply Manage- 
ment" section. 

3. Map 5.2, "Water Quality Significant Land Uses" was intended to 
show sources of pollution. The Park would not have been an appropri- 
ate item on this map. The National Seashore Park is shown as a large- 
scale commitment to open land on Map 2.3. The Park boundaries are 
noted in pink. The entire Park was not colored in because the total 
area is not owned by the Park. 

4. The ownership of reserved open space is not given for any item on 
this table. 

5. Since all of the land within the National Park boundaries is not 
owned by the Park, the "jurisdictional constraints" cannot be said to 
apply to the entire area. This map was intended only to show the geo- 
hydrologic areas suitable for water supply recharge areas on the basis 
of present land use and other criteria. 

6. Growth control is discussed in the sections referenced as an al- 
ternative land use measure. Specific recommendations on limiting growth 
are not made in the 208 plan. It is felt that more information and plan- 
ning are needed before any concrete determination can be made on the 
basis of either water supply or wastewater considerations. It must 
also be emphasized that the 208 plan is not a comprehensive land use 
plan for Cape Cod. 

7. It appears that these comments are based on the plan summary which 
does not address the plan's recommendations on on-site system management 
and septage treatment and disposal in the detail that is presented in 
Chapter 4. It is suggested that the reviewer read Chapter 4 and the 
"Wastewater Management" section of the final plan. 

8. This comment is also based on the summary. A discussion of the need 
to control land uses on pond shores to achieve long-term protection from 
accelerated eutrophication is presented in Chapter 5. A revised "Pond 
Management" section is presented in the final plan. 



101 



9. The water quantity impacts of water supply development are discussed 
to a limited extent, in Chapter 4, Environmental Assessment. Salt water 
intrusion is not emphasized because it is not an imminent problem for 
most of the Cape. The 208 plan favors recharging wastewater to the ground 
and criteria for locating wellsites are presented that will also help to 
avoid salt water intrusion. Since it is extremely unlikely that any major 
outfall disposal systems will be constructed in the future, it is not 
expected that saltwater intrusion is as serious a problem as the protec- 
tion of water supplies from non-point sources of pollution. A detailed 
description of the groundwater resource and salt/fresh water boundaries 
will be provided in the forthcoming USGS study reports. 

10. The 208 program does not lack authority to address environmental 
preservation issues as suggested by the reviewer. These issues are ad- 
dressed in every aspect of the draft plan including its environmental as- 
sessment discussions and charts, water quality goals and throughout its 
management program sections. Attention has also been given to economic 
considerations, but it is clear that the 208 plan, in meeting the goals 
of PL 92-500, is primarily an environmentally oriented document designed 
to help preserve and maintain the water resources of Cape Cod. 

Department of Transportation 
June 19, 19 78 

1. It is agreed that towns with airports that are considering 
installation of a sewerage system in areas adjacent to or even 
nearby the airport should employ the necessary land use controls 
to avoid inducing additional residential growth in these areas. 

2. Same as #1. 

3 . S ame as # 1 . 

4. The comment regarding septage planning in Mashpee is unclear but 
the location of a septage facility in the vicinity of Otis Air Force 
Base should be considered a compatible land use (although an evaluation 
of water quality impacts of locating such a facility at Otis has not 
been conducted) . 

5. Regarding the possibility that Provincetown may relocate its land- 
fill close to the airport, there is no such suggestion in the 208 draft 
plan, nor is it under consideration by the town, to our knowledge. 
However, it is recognized that landfills are not a compatible land use 
with airports due to the attraction of seagulls and the potential 
danger they pose to aircraft. 



102 



Draft Plan Review 
Committees 

Questionnaire Summary 
208 Staff Responses 



Local Draft Plan Review Committees 

Water Quality Questionnaire Comments Summary 

Barnstable- BA*; Bourne-BO; Brewster-BR; Chatham-CH; Dennis-DE; Eastham- 
EA; Falmouth-FA; Harwich-HA; Mashpee-MA Orleans-OR; Provincetown-PR; 
Sandwich-SA***; Truro-TR; Wellfleet-WE; Yarmouth-YA** 

*Mull en- Barnstable Fire § Water Dist. **Karnes-Health Agent 
Wilson-Conservation Commission Long-Taxpayers Association 

Kelly-Health Agent Schroeder-Taxpayers Association 

Ellis-Planning Board 

***Taylor, William C.-Town Engineer 

Regional § Local Water Quality Monitoring (See Ch. 3, pp. 3-55 to 3-58) 

1. Do you agree with the recommendation that a comprehensive regional 
water quality monitoring system be developed and managed by the CCPEDC? 

Yes: BA (Mullen, Wilson, Kelly), BO, BR, CH, DE, EA, OR, PR, TR, 
YA (Schroeder, Long) s SA 

No: YA (Karnes) 

Comments : 

Yarmouth - Karnes - "Under County Health Department" 

2. Do you support funding a county position of chemist at $13,000/yr. 
to continue a private well monitoring program? 

Yes: BA (Mullen, Wilson, Kelly), BO, BR, CH, OR, PR, TR, YA (Long) } SA 

No: YA (Schroeder, Karnes) 

Comments : 

Eastham - no answer, due to insufficient information 
Dennis - A chemist is already employed; need a sample collector 
(lab assistant) - $8,500/year. 

3. Do you plan to monitor your sanitary landfill plume on a continuing 
basis? 

Yes: BO, BR, DE, PR, TR, YA (Long, Karnes, Schroeder), SA 

No: BA (Kelly) 

Comments: 

Barnstable - Kelly: No - Haven't located plume nor could 208 help. 3 
Eastham - Recommend to Board of Health 
Orleans - Need more information 



2 



-'; 



103 



4. Is your town willing to expend $2,000-$10,000 to participate in 
a regional landfill monitoring program with USGS § CCPEDC? 

Yes: BO, BR, TR, YA (Schroeder, Long), SA 

No: YA (Karnes) 

Comments : 

Bourne - The committee would be willing to sponsor such an article 
as this is obviously subject to town meeting approval for 
the said appropriation. 

Eastham - Recommend to Board of Selectmen to bring to Town Meeting 
when program is ready. 

Yarmouth - Long - "Voters must decide" 

Provincetown - Town Meeting may not fund this because of high tax 
rate. 

Orleans - need more information 

Chatham - depends on direct benefits to town, cost to town, 
available funding. 

Brewster - if done at Brewster landfill 

Barnstable - Mullen - Probable. 

Dennis - monitor wells are in place, would welcome further tech- 
nical assistance, sample collecting, sample analysis, plume 
location analysis, and data meaning 

Sandwich - We agree that the town should go along with this program, 
however we want it understood that at the present time the town 
is monitoring test holes around its landfill. 

Wastewater Management (See Ch. 4, pp. 4-87 to 4-104) 

6. Do you agree with the identification of wastewater management 
problems in your town? 

Yes: BA (Mullen, Wilson, Kelly), BO, CH, DE, EA, OR, PR, YA - 
(Schroeder, Long), SA 

Comments: 

Eastham - There was some concern expressed by several of the 
members regarding specifics. 

Chatham - Essentially Yes. However, there are differences in 

detail between Map 4.1 § Table 4.1 of the Plan § Fig. 3-4 

of the Metcalf § Eddy Preferred Plan. Reference to Chatham's 

comments to EPA, Appen. A-l. 5 

Brewster - We question Category #2 for South Brewster. C 

Sandwich - We have answered "yes" to this question only because 
we agree with your report in principle. We feel that the 
computer program for identification of the problem areas was 
very poorly explained and poorly done. The results shown were 
not indicative of the problems in the Town of Sandwich. Also, 
we find that the different types of alternative systems such 
as compost toilets and digesting toilets was not properly, or 



104 



7 



at best poorly presented. I think that in your explanation 
of the advantages of the different systems, you should have 
also stated the disadvantages of these systems. Also, you 
will find, or I find that the cost estimates given are actually 
not indicative of the present day prices. If the prices that 
you used to prepare this report are from two to three years 
ago, it should so be stated in the report. 

7a. For Category 1 (sewer service area) towns: Will you take action 
to abate the problems in your Category 1 £ 2 areas by: 

1. Initiating or continuing a 208 Facilities Plan possibly toward 
construction of a sewage treatment facility? 

Yes: BA (Mullen), BO, CH, PR, YA (Long, Karnes, Schroeder) ,SA 

Chatham - Chatham has a sewage treatment plant in operation and 
wishes to utilize its capacity more fully by extending 
laterals in areas contiguous to presently sewered areas. 
Sewering £ alternatives will be considered for other Category 
2 areas. 

Barnstable - Kelly - have plans, and comprehensive sewer plan. 

7a. 2. Working to enforce alternatives such as upgrading failing 
systems, water conservation, and innovative systems? 

Yes: BA (Wilson), BO, CH, PR, TR, YA (Schroeder, Long, Karnes) 

Comments : 

Yarmouth - Yes - Needs town meeting approval if not already a bylaw O 
Barnstable - Mullen - Some attempts planned. 

Kelly - Already do. have reservations about innovative Q 

system. Must follow Title 5. 

7b. For towns with no Category 1 areas: Will you take action to 

abate the potentially serious problems in your Category 2 areas by: 

1. Seeking 201 funds to prepare a town-wide management plan possibly 
including construction of town-owned neighborhood treatment 
systems, a septage treatment facility and renovation of on-site 
systems? 

Yes: OR 

No: BA (Kelly) 

Comments : 

Barnstable - 201 prepared septage accepted at plant. 1U 

Orleans - Conflicts LEA § EPA 

Chatham - See transmittal letter. -Li 

Dennis - Category 2 £ 3 areas have been identified. Much has 
been previously implemented. Would concentrate on a 
management plan renovation on-site systems, additional 
inventories. 



in', 



2. At town expense (additional Board of Health personnel), 

conducting inventories of problem areas, requiring upgrading 
of failing systems, constructing neighborhood treatment 
systems where needed, and constructing a septage treatment 
facility (perhaps in cooperation with neighboring towns)? 

Yes: BA (Kelly) 
No: OR 

Comments: 

Barnstable - Kelly, Only if additional personnel furnished. 10 

3. Seeking funds to assist homeowners to upgrade systems through 

HUD or other funding sources? 

Yes: EA, OR, BR 

Comments : 

Orleans - Try, but doubt if we would qualify. 

8. Will you adopt the following sections of the on-site management 
program? 

8a. Employ a qualified health agent at a cost of $13,000-$20,000 

per year for on-site system management. (Towns that already have 
a qualified health agent may need additional staff to carry out 
a management program. Small towns may be able to share a health 
agent's services.) 

Yes: BA (Kelly), BO, BR, EA, TR, YA (Schroeder, Karnes, Long), SA 

No: BA (Mullen), PR 

Comments : 

Eastham - Regional Health Agent. 

Barnstable - Mullen: probably not, Board of Health opposed. 

Kelly: Yes, health agents have many state mandated duties 23 
besides sewage systems. 
Dennis - Some staff is in place. May have to supplement. 
Chatham - See transmittal letter. 

8b. Adopt special subsurface disposal regulations designed to strengthen 
enforcement of Title 5 specifically: 

1. Prohibit soil tests in the dry months of July, August, September 
and October. ( This may be waived by the Board of Health if 
there are no silt, clay or other impermeable soils in the 
deep observation hole.) 

Yes: BA (Mullen, Kelly), BO, BR, CH, DE, EA, TR, YA (Schroeder, 
Karnes), SA 



106 



No: PR, OR 
Comments : 

Bourne - This is with the understanding that the waiver provision 
would be contained therein. We were not in favor of pro- 
hibiting tests during the above-mentioned months. 

Barnstable - Kelly: Already have regulations. Will CCPEDC Vi 

provide expert testimony? 

Eastham - Refer to local Planning Board, Paragraph #3 recommends 

Board of Health keep records of all pumping. 
Provincetown - unnecessary because of soil conditions. Permeable soil. 15 
Barnstable - Mullen: Under consideration. 
Dennis - Dennis has adopted such regulations. Provided for in 

local regulations. 

8b. 2. Require maximum possible setback of an on-site system leach 
facility, from a private well or surface water body. The 
minimum setback of a leach facility from a surface water 
body to be 100 feet. 

Yes: BA (Kelly, Wilson), BR, BO, CH, DE, OR, PR, TR, YA (Long, 
Karnes, Schroeder), SA 

Comments : 

Yarmouth - Long: needs town meeting approval if not already a bylaw 
Barnstable - Mullen: under consideration. 

Chatham - See transmittal letter. 

Dennis - already provided for. 

3. Require applicants for permits for renovations to comply with 

Title 5 to the maximum degree possible. 

Yes: BA (Mullen, Wilson), BR, BO, CH, DE, OR, PR, TR, YA (Long, 
Karnes, Schroeder) , SA 

Yes and No: BA (Kelly) 

Comments : 

Barnstable - Kelly: yes/no--depends on circumstances 
Dennis - currently in force. 

4. Require licensed septage haulers to report to the Board of 

Health, the address of all malfunctioning systems, the 
cause of problems and repairs effected. 

Yes: BR, BO, DE, PR, TR, YA (Long, Karnes, Schroeder) , SA 

No: BA (Kelly) 

Yes and No: OR 



107 



Comments : 

Barnstable - Mullen: limited plan in effect. 
Orleans - Yes and No, partial. 
Dennis - currently required. 

8c. Initiate and enforce a septic system maintenance program 
requiring regular system pumping. (Town cost about $2 per 
household for administration.) 

Yes: BO, BR, DE, TR, YA (Long, Karnes), SA 

No: YA (Schroeder) 

Maybe: BA (Kelly) 

Comments: 

Barnstable - Kelly: Maybe, if staff provided. 

Yarmouth - Long: yes, needs town meeting approval if not already 
a bylaw 

8d. Require septage haulers to report location of on-site system 
failures and require homeowners to upgrade failing systems. 

Yes: BO, BR, CH, DE, PR, TR, YA (Long, Karnes, Schroeder), SA 

Maybe: BA (Kelly) 

Comments : 

Barnstable - maybe 

Dennis - currently required 

8e . Initiate an education program to inform the public of required 
on-site maintenance practices (with CCPEDC assistance) . 

Yes: BA (Kelly $ Mullen), BO, BR, CH, DE, EA, OR, PR, TR, YA 
(Long, Karnes, Schroeder) , SA 

Comments : 

Barnstable - Kelly: already do 
Eastham - recommend unanimously 

9. Will the town cooperate in a Regional Septage Task Force to work 
towards selection of subregional septage treatment sites and 
acceptable treatment technologies? (Approximate cost of construc- 
ting a septage treatment facility for a small subregion could be 
between $500,000 to $750,000) 

Yes: BA (Wilson), BO, BR, CH, DE, OR, YA (Long, Schroeder) 

No: BA (Kelly), YA (Karnes), SA 



108 



Comments : 

Brewster - We are interested in exploring regional possibilities 
Eastham - Board of Selectmen to recommend at future Town Meeting. 
Sandwich - Referring to the cooperation of the town in a Regional 
Septage Task Force. I believe that the only way that the 
Town of Sandwich will cooperate in this project at this time , c 
is that if it were included as part of a sewage treatment ^ 
plant in the Town of Sandwich, which would service possibly 
Mashpee and Sagamore. 

10. Does the town plan to upgrade to an interim lagoon system (at 
a cost of $20,000 to $50,000)? 

Yes: BO, BR, TR, YA (Karnes, Schroeder) 

No: BA (Kelly), OR, PR, SA 

Comments: 

Barnstable - Mullen: N/A 

Brewster - Upgrading to lagoon system will probably be required 

for approval of new landfill area. 
Chatham - have working lagoon system; phasing out. 
Yarmouth - Long: This item affected by plans to construct sewerage 

system § treatment facility. 
Eastham - no plans now. 
Dennis - currently under item 9. 

11. Will you seek a town bylaw or regulation to control occupancy of 
boats in marinas? (CCPEDC has recently received data on inner har- 
bors that will help towns determine where such measures are 
necessary.) 

Yes: BA (Wilson), BO, CH, OR, TR, YA (Karnes, Long, Schroeder), SA 

No: BA (Kelly) , PR 

Yes/No: DE 

Comments: 

Barnstable - Kelly: no - already state law 

Mullen: has been considered in past 
Chatham - yes, need to clarify legal powers. 
Yarmouth - Long: not a problem at moment, so far as I know. 
Eastham - If it becomes a problem it will be investigated and 

control sought. 
Truro - if necessary 
Dennis - Willing to look at feasibility. Harbor Master has some 

control now. 



109 



Land Use and Non Point Source Control (See Ch. 5, pp. 5-46 to 5-56) 

12. The 208 Draft Plan has identified non-point pollution associated 
with land uses as the major water quality problem on Cape cod. 
Will you work with CCPEDC to delineate Water Resource Protection 
Areas in your town and to establish overlay districts for these 
areas based on the recommended controls of the Draft Plan? 

Yes: BA (Kelly, Wilson), BO, BR, CH, DE, EA, OR, PR, TR, YA (Karnes, 
Long, Schroeder, Ellis) t SA 

Comments : 

Barnstable - Mullen: Conservation Commission § home water depart- 
ment interested in this. 

13. Will you work to modify the town's zoning bylaw to meet the 208 
Draft Plan recommendations for housing density within these areas? 

Yes: BA (Mullen, Wilson, Kelly), BO, BR, CH, DE, EA, OR, PR, TR, 
YA (Long, Karnes, Schroeder, Ellis) sa 

Comments: 

Barnstable - Mullen: action has been taken 

Eastham - Board of Selectmen will work for modified zoning. 

Dennis - Some work has been done. 

14. Will you cooperate with CCPEDC in water supply planning to protect 
future supplies? 

Yes: BA (Kelly, Mullen, Wilson), BO, BR, CH, DE, EA, OR, PR, TR, 
YA (Long, Karnes, Schroeder, Ellis) t SA 

Comments : 

Chatham - planning yes. But action by town will depend on result 
of specific studies, Refer to letter to EPA, Appendix A7. 

15. Will you encourage the use of water conservation devices through 
your health regulations and other means? 

Yes: BO, BR, CH, DE, OR, PR, TR, YA (Long, Karnes, Ellis, Schroeder),SA 

No: EA 

Comments : 

Barnstable - Mullen: There will be some cooperation by some town agencies 

Eastham - question is too vague for Eastham 's Sewage Treatment 

systems . 
Dennis - some educational steps have been taken. 

Sandwich - We have answered this question "yes", but feel that we 

have given you broad license on this subject, because you have 27 
no real statement of what devices you are speaking of. 



110 



16a. Do you plan to take the necessary steps (and increased costs) to 
operate the town's sanitary landfill according to all of the 
state's regulations? 

Yes: BA (Kelly, Mullen), BO, BR, CH, DE, EA, OR, YA (Long, Ellis, 
Schroeder, Karnes) i SA 

No: PR, TR 

Comments: 

Barnstable - Mullen: Landfill presently state approved. 
Yarmouth - Town meeting action 

Eastham - Already done, have planned. All of the regulations. 
Dennis - An approved master plan is on file. 

16b. Most of the state's regulations? 

Yes: BO, CH, OR, PR, TR 

17. What state requirements do you feel can not be met in your town's 
landfill?. 

Comments: 

Chatham - Impervious cover, brush chipping, 30% slope. 
Eastham - Impervious cover material not available; requirement 

followed as closely as practical. 
Orleans - N/A today 
Provincetown - The operation plan requiring two operators. 

The Town Meeting would not vote the funds necessary. 
Truro - Septage Disposal. 
Yarmouth - Long: I am not really familiar with State Law on this 

subject. 

Ellis: I would have to get a copy of these requirements 

as I am not that familiar with them. 
Dennis - Willing to study regional septage system for trucks. 

18. Will you encourage efforts to recycle certain waste materials 
in your landfill? 

Yes: BA (Mullen, Kelly, Wilson), BO, BR, CH, DE, EA, OR, PR, TR, 
YA (Long, Ellis, Karnes, Schroeder) , SA 

Comments: 

Barnstable - Mullen: recycling currently in progress 

Bourne - We are presently conducting such a facility within our 

landfill area. 
Eastham - Already under way. 
Dennis - Recycling program in effect since 1973. A recycling 

Commission has been established. 



Ill 



19. Will you take steps to improve methods of controlling storm 
water runoff by: 

1. Limiting impervious areas through changes to town's subdivision 

regulations and zoning bylaw 

Yes: BA (Wilson, Kelly), BO, BR, CH, TR, YA (Long, Ellis, 
Schroeder, Karnes), SA 

No: OR 

Comments : 

Barnstable - Mullen: No opinion or feeling for towns attitudes. 

Has not had any wide official or public discussion. 
Provincetown - This tends to be in opposition to the critical }$ 

need for parking. 
Truro - need advice 
Eastham - If a good solution is presented, the. towns will work 

toward implementation. 
Yarmouth - Long: yes--town meeting action if not already covered 

2. Minimizing the use of storm drains by encouraging surface 
infiltration in subdivision regulations 

Yes: BA (Wilson, Kelly), BO, BR, CH, PR, TR, YA (Ellis, Long, 
Schroeder, Karnes), SA 

No: OR 

Comments: 

Truro - if a problem 

3. Improving street cleaning and litter control (with additional 

costs to the town) 

Yes: BA (Kelly), BO, CH, TR, YA (Long, Ellis, Karnes, Schroeder), SA 

No: OR, PR 

Comments: 

Truro - if a problem 

20. Does the town presently store its road salts in a salt storage 
shed or will it have such a shed within the next year? 

Yes: BA (Mullen, Wilson), BO, TR 

No: BR, OR, PR , SA 



112 



Comments : 

Dennis - More study required in these areas; covered storage planned, 
Yarmouth - Ellis: partially 

21. If not, will the town build such a shed by: 

1. Seeking town funds of from $18,000 (40' X 40" shed) to 

$32,000 (96' X 40' shed)? 

Yes: CH 

No: OR, PR 

Comments : 

Truro - Will explore 

2. Seeking state funds through MDPW local grants (these funds 

may not become available for a number of years, if at all.) 

Yes: PR, SA 

No: TR 

Comments: 

Brewster - State funds were refused because we had no po.lution 
problems 

22. Are you willing to cooperate in educational programs and other 
regional efforts to minimize the amount of road salt used on 
state and town roads? 

Yes: BA (Mullen, Wilson), BO, BR, CH, DE, EA, OR, PR, TR, YA 
(Ellis, Long, Schroeder, Karnes) , SA 

No: BA (Kelly) 

23. Are you willing to require erosion control plans for approval 
of subdivisons of a predetermined size? 

Yes: BA (Mullen, Kelly, Wilson), BO, BR, CH, EA, RO, PR, TR, 
YA (Ellis, Long, Karnes, Schroeder) , SA 

Comments : 

Chatham - subdivisions of any size 
Dennis - study further 

Sandwich - We would like to state that this control is being done 
in the Town of Sandwich at this time. 



113 



24. Does the town have an earth removal bylaw? 

Yes: BA (Mullen, Kelly, Wilson), BO, BR, CH, EA, OR, PR, TR, 
YA (Karnes) , SA 

No: YA (Ellis) 

Comments : 

Dennis - study further 

Yarmouth - Karnes: yes, fill bylaw 

25. If not, are you willing to seek to adopt an earth removal bylaw? 
Yes: YA (Ellis, Karnes) 

26. Do you support a program to monitor underground gasoline storage 
tanks? 

Yes: BA (Mullen, Kelly, Wilson) , BR, BO, CH, DE, EA, OR, PR, TR, 
. YA (Ellis, Long, Karnes, Schroeder) , SA 

Comments : 

Barnstable - Mullen: yes, there has been no resistance to initial 
investigation 

27. Will you work with CCPEDC to develop such a monitoring program? 

Yes: BA (Mullen, Wilson, Kelly), BO, BR, CH, DE, EA, OR, PR, 
TR, YA (Karnes, Long, Ellis, Schroeder), SA 

Comments : 

Chatham - Fire Dept. responsible. Believe monitoring methods 
available. 

28. Will you seek a health regulation to require oil and gasoline 
storage tanks to be fiberglass containers and other hazardous 
chemicals to be stored in appropriate non-corrodable containers? 

Yes: BA (Wilson), BO, BR, EA, OR, PR, TR, YA (Ellis, Karnes, 
Long) , SA 

No: BA (Kelly), CH 

Comments: 

Barnstable - Kelly: No, not a health regulation. 19 

Brewster - We favor non-corrodable containers for oil, gasoline 

and chemical storage whether they are fiberglass or not. 
Chatham - Understand not enforceable by local Board of Health. 20 

More information needed on containers. 
Dennis - willing to study such proposals. 
Eastham - yes, Board of Selectmen will recommend these until 

better alternatives are presented. 



114 



Areawide Management (See Ch. 6, pp. 6-16 to 6-21) 

29. Do you agree with 208 Draft Plan recommendation that the following 
management functions should be carried out by CCPEDC as part of a 
continuing Water Quality Planning Program: 

1. Planning, Program Development and Coordination 

Yes: BA (Mullen), BO, BR, CH, DE, OR, PR, TR, YA (Schroeder, 
Long) , SA 

No: BA (Kelly, Wilson), YA (Karnes) 

Comments : 

Barnstable - Mullen: There is general agreement to this. 

Wilson: No, Need independent Authority NOW! 

Kelly: No, County Health should take over program. 21 
Brewster - By CCPEDC or other County Agency. 
Eastham - Conditional on review of function and ability of CCPEDC 

to perform the job. 
Yarmouth - Karnes: No, under County direction. 



22 



2. Water Quality Monitoring (using County lab facilities) 

Yes: BA (Mullen, Wilson), BO, BR, CH, DE, OR, PR, TR, YA (Long. 
Schroeder) 

No: BA (Kelly), YA (Karnes) f S A 

Comments: 

Barnstable - Mullen: There is general agreement to this. 

Kelly: No, County Health should take over program. 23 
Brewster - By CCPEDC or other County Agency. 

Eastham - Prefer County Health upgraded to do planning £ monitoring '2-\ 
Yarmouth - Karnes - No, under County direction 25 

Sandwich - Not as being done now. 



30. Do you feel it may be desirable in the future for a greater 
regional role (possibly an independent authority) in the 
following areas: 

1. Structural Facilities Planning, Construction and Management 

Yes: BA (Mullen, Wilson), BO, BR, CH, OR, PR, TR, YA (Karnes, 
Long, Schroeder) 

No: BA (Kelly) , SA 



115 



Comments: 

Barnstable - Mullen: Sewerage 

Chatham - Possibly; but, do not favor independent authority. 

Should be responsive to taxpayers . Prefer obtaining 

technical assistance as needed. 
Eastham - More regional planning as necessary, implementation 

preferred on local level — subject to more information. 
Yarmouth - Long: Yes, I concede the possibility that such steps 

may become desirable, but I would want more study on the 

subject. 

2. Water Supply Management 

Yes: BA (Mullen, Wilson, Kelly), BO, BR, CH, DE, OR, PR, TR, 
YA (Karnes, Schroeder, Long) 

No : SA 



Comments: 

■ 

Yarmouth - Long: Yes, I concede the possibility that such steps 
may become desirable, but I would want more study on the 
subject. 

3. Non-Point Source Control 

Yes: BA (Mullen, Wilson, Kelly), BO, BR, CH, OR, TR, YA (Karnes, 
Long, Schroeder) 

No: DE, PR, SA 



Comments : 

Yarmouth - Long: Yes, I concede the possibility that such steps 
may become desirable, but I would want more study on the 
subject. 

4. Land Use Control 

Yes: BA (Wilson, Kelly), BO, BR, CH, OR, TR, YA (Schroeder, 
Karnes, Long) 

No: PR, DE, BA (Mullen), SA 
Comments: 

Yarmouth - Long: Yes, I concede the possibility that such steps 
may become desirable, but I would want more study on the 
subject . 



116 



Sandwich - If independent authority is really independent and not 
run under or as part of CCPEDC answers will be reversed. 
I have answered all of these questions negatively, because 
I feel that if this is to be done it has to be an independent 
authority and to clarify "independent," I would say that this 
independent authority shall be completely independent of the 
Cape Cod Planning § Economic Development Commission. I do not 
believe that this independent authority should be run the way 
that the 208 Program has been run. I have stated in the past 
that I do not believe you can get a qualified person to really 
do the job that you are proposing for $16,000. and retain the 
man. I think that if we are going to institute this proposal 
it should be done properly and people who are familiar with Zo 
and have had experience in this field should be the people to 
decide who is qualified to be hired and how the work is to be 
done. 



31. Will you participate in the Water Resources Advisory Council? 

Yes: BA (Mullen, Kelly, Wilson), BO, BR, CH, DE, EA, OR, PR, 
TR, YA (Long, Karnes) 

No: SA 

32. Will you support creation of a county position of water resources 
planner ($15,000/yr .) to manage the continuing CCPEDC water 
quality planning program? 

Yes: BA (Wilson, Mullen), BR, TR, YA (Long, Karnes, Schroeder) 

No: BO, CH , SA 

Comments: 

Barnstable - Mullen: Most townspeople and officials would support 

this, some don't 

Kelly: No, looks like creating jobs after federal monies 

spent utilize existing staff. 
Chatham - Suggest that above WRAC should consider question how to 

continue program. 
Dennis - Need to develop the total program first. 

Eastham - too vague to comment on. oy 

Orleans - depends on what they would do. 

33. At the present time, the Cape Cod towns can only participate in 
regional programs through the County assessment. Would you 
support legislation to allow the County to enter into contracts 
with interested towns to perform more extensive water quality work 
for them? (County/town contracts could also be used to support 
other regional activities as well.) 

Yes: BA (Mullen, Kelly, Wilson), BO, BR, PR, TR, YA (Long, 
Schroeder, Karnes) , SA 



1 17 



28 



No: OR 
Comments : 

Barnstable - Mullen: Yes, This is a personal response, but I have 

never heard any resistance to such an idea. 
Chatham - Need to clarify cost of County organization to be able 

to handle such contractors. 
Dennis - Specific programs needed to be defined in order to 

answer this question. 
Eastham - too vague to comment on. 
Orleans - At this time it wouldn't benefit town. 

Local Perspective (See Ch. 7, pp. 7-1 to 7-4 and Town Profile) 

34. Do you feel that the assessment of your town's water quality and 
wastewater management problems is generally correct? 

Yes: BA (Wilson, Mullen), BO, BR, CH, DE, EA, OR, PR, TR, YA (Long, 
Karnes, Schroeder) , SA 

Comments: 

Chatham - Generally yes, but evident that some details are 
not clear or completely stated. 

35. Do you agree with the recommendations that are made for town 
action, particularly the selection of a wastewater management 
alternative? 

Yes: BA (Wilson, Mullen, BO, BR, DE, OR, PR, YA (Long, Kanres, 
Schroeder) j SA 

No: BA (Kelly) 

Yes/No: CH 

Comments: 

Chatham - Yes, as to agreement in principle. 

No, as to implied obligation to implement. 
Provincetown - The town reserves final opinion until a 201 29 

facilities plan is available. 

36. Please indicate any specific information or recommendations you 
want to have included in the Town Profile. Also, indicate any 
questions about the information or any changes you feel should 
be made. 

Comments : 

Barnstable - Mullen: See end comments. 

Kelly: See Board of Health comments. 
Chatham - S.T.P. with septage facility nearing completion should ^Q 

be indicated. 
Dennis - Revise pg. 7-17 as previously discussed with 208 staff. 

Map 5.1, Pg. 5-15 and Pg. 5-28 require corrections. 

118 



Dennis - Revise pg. 7-17 as previously discussed with 208 staff. 

Map 5.1, Pg. 5-15 and Pg. 5-28 require corrections. 31 

Curt Livingston (tel. 398-8031) has data. 
Eastham - No additional requests, all basic studies should be 39 

updated. 
Orleans - Dump plume and more monitoring 

37. Do you favor continuation of the 208 review committee to further 

local water supply planning activities and tb work with the CCPEDC 
to implement the 208 recommendations? 

Yes: BA (Wilson, Kelly, Mullen), BO, BR, CH, DE, EA, OR, TR, 
YA (Long, Schroeder), SA 

No: PR 

Comments : 

Chatham - Yes, In Chatham, Natural Resources Advisory Committee 
working in close cooperation with town boards provides 
satisfactory means for this. 

Eastham - Yes, better communications from CCPEDC to local level 
desired. 

Sandwich - Include recommendation for Fish Hatcheries. • J ^ 

FINAL COMMENTS: 



Barnstable - Wilson: It is essential to continue a citizens 34 
committee for implementing this program! 

Mullen: This questionnaire cannot be filled out by a committee, 
but must be done by the officials designated to the towns 35 
committee answering only those sections which are applicable 
to their field. I'm not sure the questionnaire has any real 
value. With 208 plan, coming to a close, the one outstanding 
job remaining and task which must be accomplished is public 
education and town officials indoctrination to the plans 
concept. The second most important or equally important 
task at hand, is to provide a back up of information and 
expertise for town officials when they seek bylaw and regulation 
changes to comply with the plan. 
Kelly: most of these questions are not simple yes or no answers. 






See Board of Health Comments submitted to Tom Mullen. 
Many of the questions are beyond the scope of authority of 
the Health Dept., Finance Committee, personal Boards and 
Town Meeting motion may be required. 
Brewster - This Review committee feels that the 208 Draft Plan 

EIS is well written and thorough and, at least in the case 
of Brewster, suggests a reasonable course of action. Our 
concern is to insure that "on-site systems" be installed 
(and/or upgraded) and maintained so that our groundwater will 
remain unpolluted and the need for sewering indefinitely 
postponed. Note: Some other comments, errors, etc. ai 
contained in another letter. 



119 



36 






Dennis - 208 Draft Plan (March' 78) is considered very complete. 
Dennis has in-place many elements of the plan. Continue 
groundwater monitoring of the sanitary landfill and continue 
update of local regulations are "home rule" elements which 
can be pursued. Place emphasis on greater coordination with 
various town boards such as Water Dept ./Conservation Commission. 
Place emphasis on maintenance and update of existing sanitary 
systems. Work with county to identify Water Resource Protec- 
tion Areas. Work with county on identifying/studying 
regional septage areas. 

Eastham - Need for a combination of local and regional efforts to 
solve problems is apparent from this discussion. 

Orleans - As stated previously we are in favor of subregional and 
regional activities to give us enough concerted pressure 
to obtain assistance and localized relief to help solve our 
problems in the best manner possible for the good of our town. 

Provincetown - There must be economic projections of the result of 

sewering and a program of costs and an estimated schedule of Jl 
payments for users. The financial means and effects of this 
program, if adopted, are not clear. 

Truro - The Plan review committee, although. recognizing the advan- 
tages of sewering Beach Point, also finds problems with this 
plan. Sewering an area implies a stable land for in which 
Beach Point is not. It is an unstable barrier beach subject 
to flooding and to erosion and building. Development of the 
area further is inadvisable and may be dangerous. Alternative JO 
solutions to the problem should be sought. We are willing to 
work with neighboring towns in solution of mutual problems. 

Yarmouth - Luther Long: 1. I believe that this study is a conserva - 
tive appraisal of the water quality and quantity situation as 
it applies to the Town of Yarmouth. 2. I believe that 
immediate steps are necessary to deal with the category 1 areas 
in the town, and to identify and protect the recharge areas of 
existing well sites to the maximum degree feasible. 3. I 
believe that an intensive campaign of education (or re-education) 
is required to change the pattern and rate of growth in the 
town--to prevent further deterioration and to preserve those 
qualities which make the town an attractive place for visitors 
and residents alike. 

Chapter 5: 1. I find the study as a whole to be a thorough 
and helpful presentation of the water quality management 
problems confronting Cape Cod communities, and our own in 
particular. Such specific criticism as I have do not in any 
way attack the validity of the study as a whole, and can be 
dealt with in our own approach to implementation of the Study's 
recommendations in Yarmouth. 

a. It seems to me that the population estimate for 1995 

Table 5-1) is perhaps too conservative, considering the number 7Q 
of buildable lots now on the books which are still vacant. 

b. It seems possible that disposal of hazardous chemicals 

may be more of a problem than the emphasis given in this study ^ ( n 
would indicate- -perhaps a little more attention—especially in 
the area of recommended solutions would be desirable. (Page 5-23) 



120 



c. I cannot understand what is meant by assumption 3 § 4 41 

(Page 5-37) . 

On Page 5-31, under Growth Control the Study indicates that 

the degree to which the towns will intervene in the rate of 

population growth will depend on "the perceived need." That 

factor will weigh heavily in every aspect of the implementation 

of the recommendations of this study. 

If you consider it to be within the charter of this review 

committee to consider means of attracting increased public 

attention to and interest in the problems of water quality 

management and the solutions presented in this study, I think 

it would be helpful. 

Sandwich - General Comments regarding Chapter 4 : Referring to 

septage treatment disposal options with approximate costs. 

I think that this table should either be reviewed and re- 42 

vised or specific comments should be made that would correct 

some of the inaccuracies. I find that the comments on the 

composting septage particularly, the cost factors, are very 

inaccurate. 

Tab 1 e 4.3 - Descriptions of just what the cost factors are is 
poorly described. The flows that are shown on Table 4.5 and [fj 
also the costs on Table 4.5 should be more accurately docu- 
mented. The Section for Vacuum Collection of septage systems 
emphasizes the advantages of this system. It has been proven 
that most of these systems have been absolute failures. 



44 
45 



46 



Page 4-57 - The description of infiltration - Percolation is 
very poorly done and quite misleading. Possibly this should 
be rewritten. 

Page 4-58 - I think that you have neglected to list one of 
the major disadvantages of the aerated lagoons mainly that you 
haven't included the land area requirements and their related 
costs in your descriptions and yet your discussion of ocean 
outfall seems to be deliberately written to show the disadvan- 
tages of this system. I think that we should discuss these 
systems fairly and openly and present them as they should be 
presented. Also, the comparison of Cape Cod to Long Island, 4/ 
although having been used many times in the past by certain 
groups on the Cape, doesn't seem to be a fair comparison. The 
description of sludge disposal has not been done completely 
enough and possibly should have more emphasis placed in this 
section. 

Page 4-82 and 4-83 - There is a discussion of water quality 
effects of infiltration percolation, spray irrigation and 
ocean outfall. It would appear once again that the objecti- 
vity is not the criteria and because of this your comparisons 
on Page 85 are not really objective and possibly should not be 
considered. We heartedly endorse the site management of septage 
treatment. It would seem though that in reviewing the overall 
text of this section and the proposals, it would be better If 
we could administer this type of work under administrative plan- 
that would not put into effect another layer of bureaucrac) Ln 
the water pollution control field. 

121 



48 



w 



Chapter 5 - General Comments: Once again I would like to state 
that the Town of Sandwich feels that the population projection 
figures compiled by the Herr Associates should be identified 
at the very outset to be just what they are, a study, and 
comparatively inaccurate. We have proven to you, even before 
the study was one-quarter done, that these figures were inac- 
curate and in some instances we were within 100 or 200 people "? 
for the projections for 1985. Also, I would like to again 
mention your reference to Water Conservation Devices under 
Question 15. I am reluctant to answer this question, "yes" 
when I realize that the discussions that have gone on over the 
past two years regarding this type of device. In no way do 
I want my "yes" answer used in the future to promote the use 
of some of these systems in areas that they absolutely should 
not be used in and are not needed. There are many areas of 50 
Cape Cod where there is no reason to be using some of these 
devices that are being promoted. 

Chapter 6 - Areawide Management - Question 29 : Water Quality 
Monitoring (using the County Lab): I feel that I can't answer 
this question in the affirmative, when I know that all the 
tests being done by this Lab have the results returned to the 
Boards of Health. In some instances, there are other Town 
Agencies that would like to have tests done and have the test 
results returned to them. I think this could be worked out, 
but I think it should be mentioned at this time. If, in 
fact, we are going to do this type of work, this facility 
has to answer or render service to agencies other than just 
Boards of Health when required. 

Comment in the Town Profile : The 208 Program should definitely 
recognize and make a recommendation that the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts should make every effort to recycle and reuse the 
more than ^ million gallons of water being used every day in 
the fish hatcheries, which presently is flowing to the ocean. 



51 



122 



208 STAFF RESPONSES TO : 

Local Draft Plan Review Committees 
Water Quality Questionnaire Summary 

1. While the County Health Department has agreed to cooperate in the 
proposed comprehensive water quality monitoring system, it is only one 
part of the total program. The County Health Department does not have 
the staff capability or financial resources to carry out the various 
elements of such a comprehensive monitoring system. The various types 
of water quality monitoring proposed, go beyond the concerns of the 
County Health Department (such as pond eutrophication) and must be ad- 
dressed by appropriate agencies involved in these problems. The coor- 
dination of various state and federal agencies involved in monitoring 
efforts along with the County Health Department is needed and should be 
performed by CCPEDC as recommended in the "Management Agencies" section. 

2. CCPEDC has been supportive of the County Health Department having a 
permanent full-time chemist on its staff. While County Health had the 
services of a chemist under the CETA program up until June, 1978, the 
department has not as yet retained another chemist through the CETA pro- 
gram. While County Health is presently seeking to obtain this CETA 
position and hire a chemist, it must be remembered that this individual 
can only be retained for a one year period. For a useful and efficient 
private well monitoring program, there must be continuity in this posi- 
tion. CCPEDC, therefore, supports the County Health Department's efforts 
to establish this position as a permanent County position. It is sgreed 
that the support services of a sample collector are needed and are presently 
available through a CETA research assistant position on the 208 staff. 

This position should also be made secure through federal funds or by 
establishing a County position. 

3. Mr. Kelly was one of the individuals who attended a meeting with 
USGS representatives, sponsored by the 208 program to discuss local 
interest in having USGS conduct a landfill monitoring study on Cape Cod. 
USGS would provide matching funds to towns interested in participating. 
Mr. Kelly indicated at this meeting, that while the town was interested, 
it did not wish to become involved in such a program at this time. It 

is hoped that Barnstable, along with a number of other interested towns, 
will want to cooperate in a USGS regional landfill monitoring study in 
the coming year. 

4. More information on the possibility of a USGS regional landfill moni- 
toring study will be provided by the 208 staff in the coming year. Orleans 
will have to develop a landfill monitoring program as part of its 201 
facilities plan if the plan recommends the landfill as a site for a sep- 
tage treatment facility. 

5. See responses to Chatham Board of Selectmen comments. 

6. 208 staff will discuss this problem area with town officials to deter- 
mine if a change in category is needed. 



123 



7. It is agreed that further information on the disadvantages of these 
systems should be made available. The 208 staff is aware of their limita- 
tions and have, therefore, suggested their use only in severe problem areas. 
The cost estimates presented for these systems is based on recent infor- 
mation and we do not believe they are inaccurate. 

8. Authority to require upgrading of failing systems and approving inno- 
vative systems is provided in Title 5. Requiring water conservation 
devices in new construction and/or replacing old fixtures must be passed 
as a town bylaw. 

9. DEQE is sponsoring a one year study of composting toilets and their 
grey water systems. It is hoped that this study will help resolve Mr. 
Kelly's and the 208 program's reservations regarding these systems. 

10. While it is true that Barnstable has a sewage treatment facility and 
is presently expanding that facility, all future facility planning carried 
out by the town must consider all alternatives, and not merely the further 
extension of the sewage collection system, for cost effectiveness and 
environmental impacts. Further, a number of category 2 areas in Barnstable 
have not been addressed in its present facility plan. 

11. The 208 staff has been supportive of the Orleans 201 facility planning 
effort and the possibility of a sub-regional septage facility being con- 
structed in Orleans to serve Brewster and Eastham as well. It is hoped 
that the conflicts that may have existed between LEA and EPA can be re- 
solved through this type of mutual cooperation. 

12. It is recognized that additional personnel would be required in Barn- 
stable and in a number of other Cape towns to carry out this program. The 
208 staff will assist and support local efforts to obtain additional person- 
nel . 

13. Perhaps there is some confusion concerning the position of the Barn- 
stable Board of Health and its health agent. Further exploration of the 
possibility of hiring additional Board of Health personnel for an on-site 
system management program should be pursued. 

14. See response to Barnstable Board of Health comments. 

15. See "On-Site System Management" section in final plan. 

16. The idea of the Septage Task Force would be to explore the possibili- 
ties of regional cooperation in septage treatment at acceptable treatment 
facilities such as a sewage treatment plant in Sandwich. See "Facilities 
Needs in Non-Sewered Areas". 

17. See "Water Conservation" in final plan. 

18. Parking lots can be designed using pervious cover materials especial- 
ly for areas that will only be used primarily during the summer months as 
implied by this comment. 



124 



19. The "Gasoline and Oil Storage and Spills" section amends this 
recommendation to recommend a town bylaw to be adopted for this purpose 



20. It would be enforceable by a town bylaw not a health regulation as 
previously suggested. The permits would continue to be issued by the 
fire chief who would implement the requirements of the town bylaw. 



21. The County Health Department does not have the authority or staff 
capability to manage the 208 areawide water quality management program. 

22. CCPEDC is a part of county government and all funds provided through 
the 208 program by EPA are accepted under a contract signed by the Barn- 
stable County Commissioners. 

23. See response #1. 

24. See response #1. 

25. See response #1. 

26. Funding limitations make it very difficult to offer more than 
$16,000 - $16,500 for professional staff positions. We agree that these 
funds make it likely that many applicants will not have extensive exper- 
ience. However, there are many qualified individuals in the field and 
few jobs. This salary level is not out of keeping with other regional 
planning agencies and we believe many qualified individuals would welcome 
the opportunity to work on Cape Cod. 

27. There seems to be some confusion regarding the role of the proposed 
water resources planner. As discussed in Chapter 6 of the Draft Plan, 
there is no guarantee that federal funds will be provided on a perman- 
ent basis to support the continuing 208 water quality management program. 
Over the next 1-2 years, it does appear likely that funds to support 

at least one position will be available. To provide the assistance 
needed to carry out the recommendations of the 208 plan, a professional 
staff of one water resources coordinator (title change reflects discus- 
sion in "Management Agencies" section) , one technical associate and one 
research assistant. By at least creating a county position of water 
resources coordinator, the program will have the needed staff as long 
as federal funds are available and should the federal funds end, the 
program can still continue through the county position. 

Water resource protection has been a high priority for action among Cape 
Cod citizens and officials for a number of years. The 208 program has 
set a long-term strategy for protecting these resources but requires a 
minimum commitment of staff to update and assist in implementing this im- 
portant program. 

28. The cost of contract preparation and administration would be borne 
by the town contracting the services of CCPEDC as it would in contracting 
the services of any consultant. The cost to the County would not increase 



125 



since new staff hired for a specific project would be paid for direct- 
ly with the contract funds . 

29. The 208 plan's major recommendation to Provincetown is to pursue 
completion of its 201 facilities plan. 

30. It has been noted in the final plan, Chatham Recommendations. 

31. See Appendix A of the final plan. 

32. With a continuing 208 planning staff the 208 plan is required to be 
updated on an annual basis. 

33. Recommendation has been included in final plan, "Water Conservation" 
section. 

34. See "Management Agencies" section for discussion of proposed 
Water Resources Advisory Council. 

35. The questionnaire did have some serious limitations but has been 
helpful particularly in indicating which of the draft plan recommenda- 
tions are not well understood and which need to be further detailed. 
It is agreed that public education and providing technical assistance 
are the two main tasks for the continuing 208 program. 

36. It is agreed that many of the questions posed in the questionnaire 
could not be answered by any one board or even all town boards as a group 
In certain cases town meeting action would be required, but the purpose 
of the questionnaire was to determine the intent or interest of these 
boards in working towards the implementation of the 208 plan recommenda- 
tions. It is only through this type of cooperation that efforts will be 
made to implement the 208 recommendations through the necessary town 
board or town meeting action. 

37. Such detailed cost figures will be developed in a completed 201 
facilities plan for Provincetown. 

38. This is a very good point and one that needs further study. Hope- 
fully, Provincetown will address the environmental impacts of sewering 
Beach Point in a 201 facilities plan (if the town completes the plan as 
recommended) . 

39. The population projections will be updated as part of the continu- 
ing 208 program and further attention will be given to the Yarmouth pro- 
jections as you suggest. 

40. See "Sanitary Landfills" discussion in the final plan. 

41. This was a typographical error, see "Draft Plan Errata Sheet," 
Appendix A. 

42. See "Septage Treatment and Disposal" section of final plan. 



126 



43. See "Septage Treatment and Disposal" section of final plan. 

44. It is recommended that towns evaluate vacuum sewage systems in 
future 201's. (See statement on page 4-5 3 "The technology of vaccuum 
sewers to serve individual houses is still in the experimental stage... 
towns should be kept abreast of recent developments in the field..." 

45. Unless specific comments are given, we have no basis for rewriting 
this section. 

46. The amount of land area required for lagoons is indicated on the 
table. If land area is not available (which is not always the case) 
this can be a disadvantage. 

47. Again, specifics are necessary in order to respond to comments. 

48. The purpose of this review period was to discuss environmental 
impacts in particular. We would have been pleased to receive specific 
comments on how this assessment could have been improved. See discussion 
of "Sewage Treatment § Disposal" in the final plan. 

49. We recognize that further work on the population projections is 
needed and will be part of the continuing 208 program. Please refer 
to p. 5-2 of the draft plan which directly addresses both of your com- 
ments on the projections and which was added in response to your ear- 
lier comments on this issue. 

50. We are not clear from your comments on water conservation devices 
as to what objections you may have to their use on Cape Cod. While it 
is true that water conservation may not be essential in certain parts 
of the Cape from a water quantity standpoint, certainly the economic 
benefits of their use is clear. 

51. It is the general policy of the County Health Dept . to send test 
results to the board requesting the information with a copy to the board 
of health. This procedure seems appropriate. However, if you have fur- 
ther comments we could discuss the flexibility of this procedure with 
the health department. 



#U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1978 - A-1093/273 

127 






, 



(^VER^IENT DOCUMENTS DEFTV 
8 BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY , 
700 Boylston Street >- 
Boston, MA 02117 : Z 



■